Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — STEAMSHIP "ARMISTICE" (DISTURBANCE).

Colonel DAY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received any official report of a mutiny of the crew on the British steamer "Armistice" off Cape Finisterre; whether the ship's papers were destroyed; if any fatalities have occurred amongst the officers; and can he give the House full particulars?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have received an official report on the disturbance which took place recently on board the s.s. "Armistice." From this it appears that, while the vessel was at Corcubion, Spain, on the 9th November, several members of the crew, who had obtained drink on shore, became intoxicated, created a disturbance, and did some damage to the ship. There were no fatalities and, so far as I am aware, none of the ship's papers were destroyed. The seamen concerned, with one exception, have been discharged from the ship, substitutes have been engaged, and the ship proceeded on her voyage on the 18th November.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Member say whether, contrary to reports in the Press that this was a mixed crew, it was a mixed crew or an entirely British crew?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, Sir, I think there is some truth in that. The matter is having further consideration from my Department.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Were they British seamen or foreigners?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The crew were probably mixed; but I cannot say here and now what is the nationality of every member of the crew.

Colonel DAY: Can the hon. Member say the size of the British crew? The Press reports say that it was a very important nucleus.

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am not concerned with the size of the crew. I know that there is some question as to the nationality of the master of the ship, and the matter is being further considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER THAMES (NAVIGATION).

Mr. ALBERY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade wehther he is aware of the considerable increase in the size of many of the vessels now navigating that portion of the River Thames crossed by the principal London bridges; and whether he will have inquiries made as to whether the present Regulations are sufficient to insure safe navigation, especially as regards foreign vessels?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I have been in communication with the Port of London Authority, who inform me that, while they have no statistics, it is a matter of observation that there is an increase in the size of many of the vessels now navigating the portion of the River Thames crossed by the principal London bridges. The Port Authority add that the question whether their present Regulations are sufficient to ensure safe navigation, especially as regards foreign vessels, is now engaging their attention, but up to the present their investigations have not proceeded sufficiently far to enable them to express a definite opinion on the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SHIPPING RATES (COTTON GOODS).

Mr. WADDINGTON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Shipping Conference Lines quote for cotton piece goods from Liverpool to Constantinople 75s. per measurement ton and only 17s. 6d. per measurement ton from Antwerp; whether, as both these quotations are for shipment per Confer-
ence steamers, he will place the facts before the Imperial Shipping Committee and inquire as to the names of the British and foreign shipping lines which comprise this Conference; and whether the Continental lines are prohibited from collecting cargo at British ports?

Mr. JOHNSTON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the freight rate per ton of cotton piece goods between Liverpool and Constantinople is 75s 6d. per ton, and that the rate between Antwerp and Constantinople is 17s. 6d. per ton, and of the effect of this disparity in freights upon trade and employment in this country; and if he will draw the attention of the Imperial Shipping Committee to the operations of the Shipping Conference?

Mr. HILTON: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the freight rate on cotton goods from Liverpool to Brazil is 115s. per bill-of-lading ton and from the Continent to Brazil is only 90s. per bill-of-lading ton; and will he have inquiries made by the Imperial Shipping Committee on this subject?

Mr. WADDINGTON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the rate of freight on cotton piece goods from Liverpool to Bombay was 18s. 6d. per measurement ton pre-War and the quantity sent to Bombay in 1913 was 1,176,227,500 yards, and that the freight is now 50s. per measurement ton and the quantity sent in 1926 was only 503,044,200 yards; and, in view of the decrease in the quantity since the increased freight rates were imposed, will he ask the Imperial Shipping Committee to consider whether such decrease has been caused, wholly or partly, by the freight rates and to make recommendations?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I understand that the various quotations are as stated in the questions, and that the freight rates for shipments from this country are fixed from time to time after consultation with the shippers. As to the disparities in the rates, I would refer hon. Members to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade on 22nd November to the hon. Member for Dundee; and, in connection with the first two questions, I would add that there is a Conference of Lines for the Levant trade from Ant-
werp, and a separate Conference for the trade from Liverpool. I am informed that in the latter Conference there is no foreign line, and that there is nothing to prohibit foreign lines from collecting cargo at British ports. As regards a submission to the Imperial Shipping Committee, I would refer to the answer which I gave on 23rd November to the hon. Member for Rossendale. If any hon. Member, or any responsible body representing traders, will formulate complaints in a general way, so as to include all the points they have in mind, it will be possible for me to consider whether, and if so in what form, the problem should be referred to that Committee. A number of isolated cases by themselves cannot well serve as a reference.

Mr. WADDINGTON: Can the hon. Member say whether, if the foreign ships are not prohibited from collecting cargo in this country, that when they do collect that cargo they charge British rates of freight, although they are carrying foreign goods at 17s. 6d. as against 75s.?

Lieut.- Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Is it not a fact that the cost of operating a British vessel, owing to the higher wages, better food, better accommodation and Board of Trade Regulations generally, is 75 per cent. in excess of the cost of operating a similar vessel under the Belgian flag?

Sir B. CHADWICK: In reply to the first supplementary question, such foreign vessels are free to come to British ports and load cargo which is being charged now very much higher rates in British ships. As to the second supplementary, there is, no doubt, a great deal of truth in what the hon. and gallant Member says; but I want to make it clear to my hon. Friend that I cannot submit to the Imperial Shipping Committee a case based on the bald statement as to the different rates of freight. If shippers wish to do so, and they have the opportunity to do so through their different associations, they can submit a properly formulated case to the Imperial Shipping Committee, and I will give every possible assistance.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is this House to understand that the Minister declares, arising out of the original answer, that these differential rates have been fixed
after conference with British merchants, and is he not aware that cases have been submitted to the Imperial Shipping Committee before, as in the case of Canadian flour?

Mr. RADFORD: May I ask whether representations made by these trade associations are to have more weight than representations made by Members of this House?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I will answer the first supplementary first. No. Trade organisations can make their representations to the Imperial Shipping Committee direct, or they can make them through my hon. Friend. If they are made through my hon. Friend in this House, I will make representations for him to the Imperial Shipping Committee. In reply to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), I understand it is the case that these rates are decided after discussion with the shipowners. I am so informed.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does it not naturally follow that we should not have these troubles about the rates of freight if the Government nationalised the shipping trade of this country?

Mr. HAYES: In view of the great menace to the prosperity of the ports of this country by this practice, is it not the duty of the Board of Trade to make a searching inquiry, without waiting?

Sir B. CHADWICK: No. That is not so. We have to be guided by the Royal Commission that was set up to deal with the matter. The Royal Commission on Shipping Rates of 1906 did not consider this a suitable matter in which a Government Department could intervene, and the Imperial Shipping Committee confirmed that view.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Can I not have a reply to my question?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question was too large for a supplementary. It raises a debatable point.

COTTON Goons (IMPORTS).

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value and weight of cotton yarn and cotton woven goods imported into this country for the past six months and the approximate figures for the importation of
the same commodities for the same period in 1926?

Captain HACKING (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The total imports of cotton yarns into Great Britain and Northern Ireland registered during the six months ended 31st October, 1927, amounted to 4,982,000 lbs., valued at £466,000, and of cotton piece goods to 131,000 cwt., valued at £2,184,000.
The corresponding imports in the same period last year amounted to 3,748,000 lbs. of yarns, valued at £402,000 and to 98,000 cwts. of piece goods, valued at £1,941,000.

BRICKS AND TILES.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the proportion between the total quantity of bricks and tiles produced or used in this country and the quantity imported during the first nine months of the present year?

Captain HACKING: The number of bricks of brick earth or clay returned for purposes of the Third Census of Production as manufactured in Great Britain in 1924 was 4,184 millions and the quantity of tiles of all kinds was 574,000 tons. Corresponding figures for more recent periods are not available. With reference to the quantities imported this year, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 23rd November.

MILK (SALE IN BOTTLES).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in view of his suggestion to local authorities that until there are adequate facilities for milk distributors, to provide themselves with bottles or measuring instruments, duly stamped, no action should be taken under the Weights and Measures Acts in respect of the continued use of unstamped bottles, he will state how many milk bottling-and-measuring machines have been approved by the Standards Department for stamping; and how many are under consideration at the present time?

Captain HACKING: Fourteen patterns of machines for measuring and bottling milk have, so far, been approved. Four other patterns are awaiting examination.

Mr. ALEXANDER: In view of the fact that a large number of traders are already provided with the necessary machinery,
is there any reason why we should not operate the Act at once?

Captain HACKING: There are many reasons. The first is that a certain number of inspectors would be required to carry out the work and see that there were no evasions. A second reason is that this portion of the Act does not come into operation until 1st January.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a Circular has been issued by the Board of Trade on this matter and that a large number of traders already have the machinery and are giving the net measure. Ought they to be placed in an unfair position in competition with those who are not doing so?

Captain HACKING: It is rather unreasonable to expect 50,000,000 bottles to be marked by 1st January.

BRAZILIAN CUSTOMS DUTIES (COTTON GOODS).

Mr. HANNON: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the increased tariff which the Brazilian Government has decided to impose on imported cotton piece goods; and if he will make appropriate representations to that Government so as to prevent injury to Anglo-Brazilian trade?

Captain HACKING: My attention has been called to the suggestions for increasing the Brazilian Customs duties on cotton piece goods, but I am glad to say that the President of Brazil has announced that the Brazilian Government have no intention at the present time of changing the existing duties.

Mr. HANNON: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary consider that his Department would be usefully occupied in making representations of this kind in all similar cases to foreign Governments in the future?

Captain HACKING: That matter will receive consideration.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the hon. and gallant Member draw the attention of the British Shipping Conference to this action of the Brazilian Government?

AUSTRALIAN TARIFF (IRON AND STEEL).

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the new Australian tariff on iron and steel, in particular to the increased duties against British exports of such items as bar iron, iron and steel tubes (January, 1929), and rails; and whether he has made any representations to the Commonwealth Government on the matter?

Captain HACKING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I am, however, still awaiting full details of these increases and of the other proposals of the Commonwealth Government which, I understand, include proposals for increased preference for certain classes of British goods. On receipt of this fuller information the question whether any representations to the Commonwealth Government can usefully be made will be considered.

Mr. ALEXANDER: Do I understand, in view of the large grants which this country is making for Empire trade, that these prohibitive duties will be definitely inquired into?

Captain HACKING: If necessary, representations will be made. I cannot say more until I have received full particulars.

Commander WILLIAMS: May I ask if the Australian Government do not already give us a preference which is valued at £20,000,000?

Captain HACKING: I have already said in my answer that we receive a preference, and shall continue to receive a preference.

Sir BASIL PETO: Is it not rather difficult to make representations to the Government of Australia in view of the small value of the preference which we give to them and the immense value of the preference which they give to us?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate.

COTTON INDUSTRY ACT.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that on the 21st October last a joint meeting of the Federation of Master Cotton Spinners and the Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association declared itself
strongly in favour of the renewal of the Cotton Industry Act involving a levy of 6d. per bale on imported foreign cotton in the interests of British Empire-grown cotton; and whether he will consider the question of renewing that Act?

Captain HACKING: I have been asked to reply. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that the matter is still under consideration by the parties concerned. I would view with sympathy any proposal for continuing the Act.

BRITISH MOTOR CARS (SOUTH AFRICA AND RHODESIA).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 68.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the total number of British motor-cars imported by South Africa and Rhodesia for the financial year 1926–27, and the total number imported since that date?

Captain HACKING: During the financial year 1926–27 the number of motor-cars imported into the Union of South Africa from the United Kingdom was 1,532. During the four months April to July, 1927, the number so imported was 410. As regards Rhodesia, I regret that information is not available for the financial year. The latest information available relates to the calendar year 1926, when the imports into Southern Rhodesia were 98 motor-cars and into Northern Rhodesia 22 motor-cars, three of the latter being probably included in the previous totals.

NATIONAL FINANCE.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state the estimate of the national income in 1924 based upon the results of the census of production taken in respect of that year?

Captain HACKING: The issue of the series of preliminary reports on the census is not yet complete, and the examination of the whole of the material with a view to the preparation of such an estimate as my hon. Friend desires has, consequently, not yet been possible.

Sir F. SANDERSON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the expenditure per head of the population upon the
Army, Navy, Air Force, and the Civil Service, respectively, for the two years ended 31st March, 1914, and 31st March, 1927?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. Friend to the detailed table given by the Financial Secretary in reply to a similar question on the 21st July last, a copy of which I am sending him. It must, of course, be borne in mind that comparisons of pre-War and post-War figures per head of population are very misleading owing, first, to the fact that the population of the Irish Free State is included in calculating the pre-War figures and excluded in calculating the post-War figures; and secondly, and to a far greater extent, owing to the alteration in money values, which must always be taken into account.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES (IRON AND STEEL TRADE).

Mr. DIXEY: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the fact that the iron and steel trade throughout the country are now united in their desire to bring this industry under the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and whether, in view of the position of the industry and the importance of it to the coal trade, he will reconsider the position of this industry with the Cabinet Committee?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Flint (Mr. Goodman Roberts), on 10th November, a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. DIXEY: In view of the importance of the question, cannot the hon. Member's Department make representations?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The matter is fully dealt with in the Prime Minister's answer, a copy of which I will send to the hon. Member.

Mr. SEXTON: Would it be possible to give us the actual effect of safeguarding industries all round?

Sir B. CHADWICK: That does not arise out of the question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Can the Minister give any idea as to the effect of exporting cheap coal to foreign countries would have upon cheap imported steel?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I do not think that arises out of the question.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: Will the hon. Member ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind the views that were expressed by the Conservative Conference at Cardiff on the Motion move by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Clarry)?

OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE WAR (POISON GAS).

Viscount SANDON: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that it is stated in the recently published "Official History of the War" that, although information as to the intended use of poison gas by the Germans was received by the general staff six weeks prior to the second battle of Ypres, no measures were taken during that time for the protection of our troops against a gas attack involving the loss of life; and whether any inquiry has been held as to this omission with a view to ensuring speedy action being taken in the future on information received?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Commodore Douglas King): I would refer my Noble and gallant Friend to a footnote on page 165 of the "Official History of the War, Military Operations," Vol. III, France and Belgium.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether it is not in accordance with the practice of the War Office never to punish "highly placed officials, no matter what blunders they may commit?

Viscount SANDON: Is it not the fact that there is nothing in the footnote which states that there was an inquiry at the time?

Commodore KING: It explains the circumstances under which the attack took place.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

OFFICERS (LEAVE).

Mr. GOODMAN ROBERTS: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether,
seeing that officers desirous of touring abroad on leave are ordered to give exact dates of their prospective arrival and departure and exact addresses at each place they may happen to visit before leave can be granted, he will see whether, in view of the impracticability of supplying such detailed information, instructions may be given to modify the number and extent of the questions asked?

Commodore KING: The general rule is that an officer granted leave to travel abroad must furnish exact addresses at which his Commanding Officer can communicate with him at any time. The rule is obviously desirable but, if special circumstances render it inappropriate, an officer may be permitted to give an address at home from which correspondence can be forwarded.

FURLOUGH (TRAVELLING FACILITIES).

Mr. RITSON: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for War what arrangements are made to enable non-commissioned officers and men of the Army who are on furlough to proceed to their homes in distant parts of Great Britain; whether railway tickets are supplied to them to their homes or to the regimental depot; whether there is any arrangement for return tickets at reduced fares; and, if not, whether, in view of the high charges now made for railway travelling, anything can be done to make it possible for such men to get to their homes?

Commodore KING: Arrangements have been made with the railway companies by which warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and men, travelling on leave or furlough can obtain a return ticket to any destination in Great Britain at a cost of the single fare plus one-third on production of their furlough passes at the booking office of the railway company. A similar privilege is granted once a year to a soldier's family accompanying him on his annual furlough.

Mr. RITSON: Does not the Financial Secretary think that at a time like this free facilities for travel should be provided for places so far away as the North of England?

Commodore KING: I am afraid that the concession given is the most that can be granted. To give further facilities to soldiers would throw an increased cost on the War Office.

RESERVISTS (EMPLOYMENT).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that soldiers in the Class A Reserve are forbidden to find employment on board fishing vessels sailing out of the port of Hull, although some of the deep-sea fishing vessels are only out for a week, and the average fishing trip is only about a fortnight or three weeks; whether, as these young men of the Reserve are suitable for such work, he is prepared to issue instructions to put no obstacles in the way of their obtaining employment, which in many cases is the only employment open to them; and whether he has consulted the First Lord of the Admiralty on this matter?

Commodore KING: Section A of the Army Reserve consists of a limited number of reservists who volunteer to return to the Colours in circumstances which do not render a general mobilisation necessary and who receive extra pay for undertaking this liability. It is an essential feature of their engagement that they should be available for immediate service, and it is therefore a necessary condition, which is clearly and explicitly laid down in their enrolment papers, that they should not leave the United Kingdom or lead a seafaring life. I regret that I am unable to agree to any modification of this condition.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Financial Secretary aware that apparently the War Office lump all seafaring men together in all categories of ships, whereas on these deep sea fishing vessels they are on duty for a few days only and return to the same port. Can he not allow these young soldiers to engage in what is a healthy occupation?

Commodore KING: They must carry out the conditions of their service; and that is that they must be available for immediate service.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are not the men who are moving about the country working on the land just as difficult to trace as these young men who would be serving on these fishing vessels?

Commodore KING: That is not our experience with regard to the reservists called up for the Shanghai Defence Force.

Mr. HANNON: Will the Financial Secretary see that any concession made at the port of Hull will be made at all other ports in the country?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is not asking for a favour for a particular port, but for a particular calling.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he has any figures showing the number of reservists returned from China who have returned to their former work or obtained other employment; if he has figures showing the number who have not yet succeeded in obtaining work; and what steps he has taken, or is taking, to see that they all obtain work?

Commodore KING: As regards the steps which have been taken to find employment for Section A reservists on their return home, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply on 24th November to the hon. Member for Bristol East (Mr. W. Baker).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I heard that reply, and it dealt only with the question of Bristol. May I press the hon. and gallant Gentleman to deal with the whole country. Has he no figures?

Commodore KING: I have no figures. I have obtained full reports from the local associations, and my answer to the hon. Member for Bristol East said that we were having the assistance of local associations in all parts of the country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How can the hon. and gallant Gentleman pretend that he is trying to find work for these men when he has no figures as to the number who want employment?

Mr. THURTLE: Cannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest to the War Office that they should appeal to the wealthy merchants of Shanghai to open a fund—

Mr. SPEAKER: That is in the nature of a debating point.

MEDALS.

Colonel WOODCOCK: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for War the total number of medals, and the numbers of
each kind, which have been issued during the six months ending 30th September last?

Commodore KING: I have had a statement prepared which, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have had the information brought up to date, but have shown the figures for the six months ending 30th September last separately.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Can the Financial Secretary

Medals.


Description of Medals.
Issued.
Issued in replacement of medals lost, etc.


1st Apr., 1927 to 30th Sept.,1927.
1st Oct., 1927 to 26th Nov., 1927.
1st Apr., 1927 to 30thSept.,1927.
1st Oct., 1927 to 26th Nov., 1927.


British War (Silver)
3,290
3,309
95
44


British War (Bronze)
126
—
1
—


Victory
3,174
3,055
85
45


1914 Star
79
40
21
10


1914–15 Star
673
71
32
16


Territorial Force War
125
66
2
2


General Service
2,519
485
64
—


India General Service,1908
650
135
4
2


Africa General Service
179
42
4
—


South Africa, 1877–8–9
—
1
—
1


South Africa, 1899–1902
27
6
29
11


West Africa
—
—
1
—


Egypt, 1882–5
—
—
3
1


Queen's Sudan
—
—
1
—


Sultan's Sudan
1
—
—
—


Afghan, 1878–80
—
—
2
—


India, 1854
3
—
4
—


India, 1895
—
—
3
—


Tibet Mission, 1903–4
—
—
1
—


Military Cross
—
—
7
4


Distinguished Conduct Medal
4
3
—
3


Military Medal
8
3
11
2


Meritorious Service Medal
62
4
3
1


Long Service and Good Conduct
1,190
59
6
—


Territorial Efficiency
267
122
—
—


King's Shooting
2
—
—
—


Delhi Durbar
1
—
—
—


Ashanti Star, 1896
—
—
1
—


Totals
12,380
7,401
380
142


Clasps, Badges, etc.






Various Clasps
4,484
1,162
199
82


Silver War Badge
3
—
10
4


Rosettes and Emblems
1,276
859
85
21


Totals
18,143
9,422
674
249


Grand Total
28,488

tell us approximately the number of medals issued during that period?

Commodore KING: In the period to which I refer the grand total is 28,488.

Sir F. HALL: Does that require a staff of 32?

Commodore KING: I think it does.

Mr. SEXTON: How many of the ex-Service men have had to take their medals to the pawnshop owing to lack of employment?

Following is the statement:

TERRITORIAL OFFICERS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES).

Mr. ELLIS: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that owing to the common interpretation of a certain Order just circulated in several areas of the Northern Command relating to Territorial officers and their participation in politics, it appears that all Territorial officers are now prevented from attending political meetings and from forwarding the interests of any political candidature, and whether such interpretation of the Order is correct?

Commodore KING: My attention has been drawn to a case in which the recent amendment to the Territorial Army Regulations regarding political activities of officers has been incorrectly reproduced in local orders. The amendment in question applied not to all Territorial Army officers but only to those holding what are practically fulltime posts as Brigade Commanders and so on and are drawing pay continuously. Steps had already been taken to correct the error.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: May I ask whether, seeing that great confusion exists in service towns about these new Regulations, the hon. Gentleman can have them reproduced and carefully explained in detail, so that people may know what their position is?

Commodore KING: I think the original printed Order was perfectly clear.

Viscountess ASTOR: If it be clear, it is being misinterpreted.

WAR OFFICE (MEDALS AND PENSIONS STAFFS).

Colonel WOODCOCK: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for War what reductions have been made in the staff for the issue of medals since 30th July last; and what was the number and grade of the staff employed at the end of the last financial year?

Commodore KING: The staff of the Medals Branch at the War Office was 36 on 31st March, 1927, 34 on 30th July, and is now 32. The question of further
reductions is being considered in connection with next year's Estimates.

Colonel WOODCOCK: May I ask the Financial Secretary to bear in mind the recommendation of the Estimates Committee to make a quick further reduction in the staff?

Commodore KING: Yes, we have that recommendation in mind.

Sir JOHN POWER: 23.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of persons engaged at the War Office in the administration of pensions now and in 1913–14 and the percentage cost of such administration to the amount of pensions payable in 1927–28 and in 1913–14, respectively?

Commodore KING: The staff employed at the War Office on the work connected with the administration of the retired pay and pensions of officers and soldiers (including half-pay and widows' pensions) is the equivalent of 16 fulltime employés, compared with 14 in 1913–14, and its cost is 071 per cent. of the amounts payable in 1927 compared with 073 per cent. in 1913–14.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RURAL WORKERS ACT (SCOTLAND).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many local authorities have submitted schemes under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, giving the numbers of houses involved, and amounts promised in the way of grants and loans, respectively, for each of the respective schemes?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): Up to date, 62 local authorities in Scotland have submitted to the Scottish Board of Health schemes under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, which have been approved by the Board. As at the 30th September last, the latest date for which the information is available, grants had been promised in respect of 206 houses amounting to £18,966 19s. 10d., and a loan in respect of one house amounting to £100. As the details of the respective schemes are somewhat long, I propose to publish them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the details:

STATEMENT giving certain details of the schemes submitted by local authorities in Scotland and approved by the Scottish Board of Health under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926.

The following statement gives the names of the 62 local authorities in Scotland who have submitted schemes up to date under the Housing (Rural Workers) Act, 1926, and have received the approval of the Scottish Board of Health to the proposals contained therein. The details shown give respectively the amounts of grants and loans promised by certain of these local authorities under those schemes both for the improvement of

I.— Grants Promised.


Local Authorities with approved Schemes.
Number of Dwellings covered by applications for assistance.
Grants Promised.


Number of Houses.
Amount.


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)


1.—Counties.







Aberdeen County:



£
s.
d.


Aberdeen District Committee
…
2
2
121
13
4


Alford District Committee
…
—
—
—


Deer District Committee
…
3
2
197
0
0


Deeside District Committee
…
—
—
—


Ellon District Committee
…
9
9
760
0
0


Garjoch District Committee
…
9
9
900
0
0


Huntly District Committee
…
6
6
569
13
4


Turriff District Committee
…
1
1
76
10
0


Berwick County:








East District Committee
…
—
—
—


Middle District Committee
…
2
2
200
0
0


West District Committee
…
—
—
—


Clackmannan County
…
—
—
—


Caithness County
…
21
—
—


Dumfries County:








Annan District Committee
…
—
—
—


Dumfries District Committee
—
—
—
—


Langholm District Committee
…
—
—
—


Lockerbie District Committee
…
5
5
500
0
0


Thornhill District Committee
…
3
3
218
0
0


East Lothian County:








Eastern District Committee
…
15
9
900
0
0


Western District Committee
…
81
81
7,810
6
3


Fife County:








Cupar District Committee
…
—
—
—


Dunfermline District Committee
…
1
1
100
0
0


Kirkcaldy District Committee
…
—
—
—


Forfar County:








Brechin District Committee
…
—
—
—


Dundee District Committee
…
—
—
—


Forfar District Committee
…
—
—
—


Kincirdine County:








Laurencekirk District Committee
…
—
—
—


Lower Deeside District Committee
…
—
—
—


St. Cyrus District Committee
…
—
—
—


Stonehaven District Committee
…
1
1
100
0
0

existing dwellings and the conversion into dwellings of buildings not previously used as such, and refer to the position of matters as at the 30th September last, the latest date for which information is available. In the 25 cases, where only dashes appear in columns (3) and (4) of the table, the local authorities' schemes had been approved before the 30th September, but no promises of assistance had up to that date been made under them. In the nine cases, where all the columns are shown blank, the schemes of the local authorities concerned were approved after the 30th September and no returns of progress have yet been received.

Local Authorities with approved Schemes.
Number of Dwellings covered by applications for assistance.
Grants Promised.


Number of Houses.
Amount.


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)


Kirkcudbright County:


£
s.
d.


Eastern District Committee
…
1
1
100
0
0


Northern District Committee
…
1
1
100
0
0


Southern District Committee
…
3
3
300
0
0


Western District Committee
…
—
—
—


Lanark County:








Middle Ward District Committee
…
—
—
—


Upper Ward District Committee
…
—
—
—


Midlothian County:








Calder District Committee
…
—
—
—


Gala Water District Committee
…
—
—
—


Lasswade District Committee
…
—
—
—


Moray County
…
5
5
423
0
0


Peebles County
…
10
9
900
0
0


Perth County:








Eastern District Committee
…
1
—
—


Central District Committee
…
—
—
—


Highland District Committee
…
—
—
—


Western District Committee
…
—
—
—


Perth District Committee
…
5
1
100
0
0


Ross and Cromarty County:








Black Isle District Committee
…
7
4
400
0
0


Easter Ross District Committee
…
15
12
1,009
0
0


Midd Ross District Committee
…
19
13
1,071
13
8


South Western District Committee
…
15
12
856
3
3


Roxburgh County:








Hawick District Committee
…
1
1
100
0
0


Jedburgh District Committee
…
3
3
200
0
0


Kelso District Committee
…
4
4
400
0
0


Liddesdale District Committee
…
—
—
—


Melrose District Committee
…
1
1
100
0
0


Selkirk County
…
5
5
454
0
0


Stirling County:








Central District Committee
…
—
—
—


Western District Committee
…
—
—
—


Wigtown County:








Machars District Committee
…
—
—
—


Rhins District Committee
…
—
—
—


2. Burghs.







Huntly
…
2
—
—


Portknockie
…
—
—
—


Totals
…
257
206
18,966
19
10

II.—Loan Promised.


Local Authorities with Approved Schemes.
Number of Dwellings covered by applications for assistance.
Loan Promised.


Number of Houses.
Amount.


(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)


Kirkcudbright County:


£
s.
d.


Southern District Committee
…
…
1
1
100
0
0

IRISH FREE STATE (SAILORS AND SOLDIERS' LAND TRUST).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister how many houses have been built in the Irish Free State by the Sailors and Soldiers' Land Trust, and what portion of the original grant of £1,500,000 remains unexpended; and how many more houses still remain to be built and what will be the further cost to carry out in full the British Government's pledges?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked to take this question. I am informed that up to the 31st October last 1,747 cottages for ex-service men hail been completed in the Irish Free State, and 274 cottages were under construction at that date. The former figure includes the cottages built (at a cost of £2,071,000) under the provisions of the Irish Land (Provision for Sailors and Soldiers) Act, 1919, before the Land Trust, which was constituted on the 1st January, 1924, came into being. The sum finally handed over to the Land Trust was £1,300,000. The unexpended balance in the Capital Accounts of the Trust is £606,000, of which £442,000 is available for operations in the Irish Free State and £164,000 for Northern Ireland. The Trustees expect to be able to build about 600 more cottages in the Irish Free State besides completing those now under construction. As regards the last part of the question, the sum handed over to the Trust was paid in full and final settlement of all claims on His Majesty's Treasury.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Did not the British Government make a promise, in view of the fact that in Ireland there was no compulsion, to build houses for ex-soldiers after the War?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That point is covered by the last sentence in the answer which I have just given.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that only a very small number have been built?

SLUM CLEARANCE (COMPENSATION).

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 74.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the desire, both on the part of local authorities and the public, that compensation shall be payable in respect of still serviceable properties compulsorily acquired by local authorities under slum-clearance
schemes, he is prepared to introduce or approve legislation on this subject in the Session of 1928?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to add anything to the reply given to the similar question put by my hon. Friend on the 8th November.

SUBSIDY HOUSE, HONINGTON, SUFFOLK.

Mr. KELLY: 75.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the action of a farmer at Honington, Suffolk, who, having hired a house from the Brandon Rural District Council, which house was built under the Addison housing scheme, is now engaged in an effort to have the tenant evicted; and will he take steps to amend the law so as to prevent houses, in respect of which subsidy has been paid, from being rented by tenants with a view to sub-letting as tied houses?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend's attention has not previously been drawn to this case, but he is making inquiries and will communicate further with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

EDUCATION ACT, 1883.

Mr. WESTWOOD: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that three parents at Budhill, Lanarkshire, refused to send their children to Uddingston Grammar School, the nearest centre for advanced division education, and that the Cadder School Management Committee could take no action against them because of Section 11, Sub-section (b), of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1883; if he has yet received the reasoned statement and proposed Amendment to this Act from the Education Authorities' Association of Scotland; and will facilities be given this Session for the Amendment's passage into law if agreement can be reached on the proposed Amendment?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The statement referred to by the hon. Member has just been received from the Association of Education Authorities and is now under consideration. With regard to the last part, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on the 15th instant.

Mr. WESTWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is really a serious situation in which the authorities are placed, and that it is only a matter of 40 words that would be necessary at the most to give the necessary effect to the Amendment proposed?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As it entails immediate legislation, I am afraid that it is out of the question.

PARISH RELIEF.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons per estimated thousand of the population in Scotland who, at the same date during each of the past four years, respectively, have been in receipt of Poor Law relief?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of persons per thousand of the estimated population in Scotland who were in receipt of Poor relief at the 15th May of each of the years 1924, 1925, 1926 and 1927 was 46.9, 42.3, 58.4 and 48.8 respectively.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman bring these figures to the notice of the Labour Minister, who still keeps telling us that unemployment is decreasing?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware these figures are almost double the figures for England, and can he offer any explanation as to why poverty in Scotland should be so much greater?

Sir J. GILMOUR: As a matter of fact, I think the figures are hardly comparable with those which were given by my right hon. Friend. These figures include a number of persons who were not included in the English returns. The English figures excluded lunatics, casuals and out-door relief cases.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not self-evident to the Secretary of State, as a result of those figures, that there is greater poverty in Scotland than there is in England?

Commander WILLIAMS: What proportion of these are Scottish and what proportion are of Irish extraction?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman, being an Irishman, should be a judge.

Mr. JOHNSTON: 28.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the parish council of Greenock has decided that in future no relief shall be paid to destitute able-bodied unemployed persons unless such persons have resided in Greenock for at least one year prior to the date of application, and have been employed, other than upon relief work, for at least six month's; and whether, in view of the Poor Law (Scotland) Emergency Acts, he will take steps to ensure that the destitute poor have the succour afforded them by the Act of Parliament?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am aware of the decision referred to by the hon. Member, and I have instructed the Scottish Board of Health to take the matter up with the Parish Council of Greenock.

BARLEY (MILLING).

Mr. WESTWOOD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has received a memorandum from the barley milling trade protesting against the Regulations prohibiting the use of preservatives in food, as they will affect the milling and treatment of pearl barley in the manufacturing process, and requesting amendment of the Regulations to allow sulphur dioxide to be used as allowed for the manufacture of cornflour; and, if so, will he be prepared to meet a deputation of barley millers of Scotland with a view to giving his assistance in having the Regulations amended?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The answer to the first part of the questions is in the affirmative. As regards the second part I would refer the hon. Member to my reply on this subject given yesterday to the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown).

ELECTRICITY SCHEME (CONTRACT).

Mr. HARMSWORTH: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Central Electricity Board are permitting foreign tenders to be offered for the Scottish electricity scheme; and whether the Treasury will notify the Board that Treasury guarantees will be withheld in respect of capital raised by the Board unless tendering is restricted to British firms?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The suggested restriction on Treasury guarantees of Electricity Board loans was proposed to the Standing Committee which considered the Electricity (Supply) Bill last year, and an Amendment to give effect to such restriction was rejected by the Committee after full discussion. In these circumstances, I am not prepared to take the action suggested in the last part of the question. I am glad, however, to be able to state that I understand that, as a result of the tenders which have been received for the transmission lines under the Scottish scheme, the Electricity Board has decided that the contract shall be placed with one or other of the British firms tendering.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a most vicious principle to admit into the administration of the Central Electricity Board, and should not preference be given to British manufacturers for these contracts?

Mr. SPEAKER: The House has already decided that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

CLOSED MINES.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he is able to obtain the amount paid in rates by the Navigation Colliery of Mountain Ash, the Powell Duffryn Collieries in the Aberdare District, and the Cwmaman Coal Company's Collieries in the Cwmaman District which have been closed down during the six months preceding the closing of the collieries; and the amount of rates for which they are liable while closed down as at present?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. With regard to the last part, I understand that the amount of rates payable by these collieries is mainly determined by the tonnage produced. Comparatively little, therefore, is payable in respect of a period during which they are closed down.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the fact that they are now paying no rates and were paying rates while the pits were open, will the right hon. Gentleman sug-
gest a change in the law to compel the owners of these pits to pay their rates whether the pits are open or not?

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 32.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many mines in each of the districts for which a separate wages ascertainment is prepared have been closed in the last 12 months because they could no longer be carried on under economic conditions?

Colonel LANE FOX: With the hon. Member's permission, I will publish the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

NUMBER of PITS closed for economic reasons during the last 12 months and not re-opened, and the number of wage-earners employed thereat.


District.
Pits closed and not re-opened.
Number of wage-earners employed thereat.


Scotland
44
4,003


Northumberland
10
1,640


Durham
41
8,244


South Wales and Monmouth.
98
21,401


Yorkshire
27
3,412


North Derbyshire
5
26


Nottinghamshire
—
—


South Derbyshire
—
—


Leicestershire
1
13


Cannock Chase
3
1,018


Warwickshire
1
5


Lancashire and Cheshire
16
2,028


North Staffordshire
2
463


North Wales
5
139


South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire.
12
219


Shropshire
5
31


Cumberland and Westmorland.
4
234


Bristol
—
—


Forest of Dean
11
100


Somerset
1
41


Kent
—
—


Great Britain
286
43,017

JOINT COMMITTEES.

Mr. WILFRID PALING: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether any joint committees have been established at any coal mine in this country on the lines laid down in Section 21 of the Mining Industry Act, 1926?

Colonel LANE FOX: Arrangements of the nature referred to exist at a number
of mines, but, as I explained in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Haydn Jones) on 15th June, I have no detailed information.

AMALGAMATION AND ABSORPTION SCHEMES.

Mr. PALING: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many amalgamation and absorption schemes have been put into operation under Part I of the Mining Industry Act, 1926; and how many separate mines were included in such schemes?

Colonel LANE FOX: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to a similar question by the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. J. Baker) on 14th November.

Mr. PALING: Is it not a fact that the number of schemes is very small indeed, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how long it is likely to be, at the present rate of progress, before we get anything in the nature of unification?

Colonel LANE FOX: I have informed the hon. Member for Bilston that the time for making a report will be two years from the passing of the Act. That will be the time to make a complete statement.

DISTRICT ASCERTAINMENTS.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 33 and 34.
asked the Secretary for Mines (1) if he is aware that in the district ascertainments for coal mines there are differences in the item cost of timber amounting to as much as 1s. per ton of output; and will he inquire into the cause of these variations;
(2) why in the district ascertainments for mines there are differences in the item costs other than wages amounting to as much as 2s. per ton of coal output; and will he inquire into the cause of these variations?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am aware of the figures to which the hon. Member refers. They are checked by separate accountants on behalf of both the owners and the workmen, and I am satisfied that they accurately represent the varying conditions which are known to exist in the different districts.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there are certain figures to which the auditors representing the workers have not access, and in view of the great differences in the cost of timber and other materials, does he not think that the officers representing the mine workers ought to have access to all the figures that the colliery companies have?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, Sir; but I have heard myself the accountants acting on behalf of the workmen state to the Coal Commission that they were fully satisfied that they had access to all these figures.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a short time ago in Yorkshire the Miners' Association had to complain that the auditors had not access to these figures, and after having been before the Umpire they have proved conclusively that statistical matter that ought to have been available but was not available is to be available in future? Ought not that to be general?

Colonel LANE FOX: Yes, the Yorkshire miners used their correct remedy and got a reply, but there is no allusion to timber in that case.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that these great differences for one material used in collieries make a difference between a paying proposition and a non-paying proposition, and that it is his duty to look into these matters?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

MOTOR TRAFFIC (ACCIDENTS).

Colonel DAY: 35.
asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the many fatal accidents to children caused by motor traffic, he will consider the introduction of legislation to give local authorities the power to prohibit the use of certain side streets to motor traffic during certain hours of the day and thus provide safe facilities in such specified areas to enable children to use them in lieu of a playground?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I am afraid I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member a year ago in answer to a similar question,
and which was to the effect that it would require legislation to enable his suggestion to be put into force. Whilst the object he seeks to attain, namely, additional facilities for children to play, is one that has my sympathy, I fear that his proposal is impracticable.

Colonel DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this system is practised in many States in America, and cannot he recommend it to the local authorities over here?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members are too apt to repeat the same questions they have on the Paper.

Viscount SANDON: 36.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange for statistics to be produced annually as to the distribution of motor accidents as between drivers, passengers, and pedestrians, and as to the relation ship between the deaths so caused and the average number of miles travelled by these vehicles?

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think that statistics on the basis suggested by my Noble Friend would be reliable unless a statutory obligation were placed upon drivers to keep records of their journeys, and even in that event I doubt whether such statistics would contribute materially towards an elucidation of the causes of road accidents or a reduction in their number.

BICYCLES (REAR LIGHTS).

Sir FRANK NELSON: 37.
asked the Minister of Transport whether legislation making it necessary for push bicycles to carry rear lights will be undertaken before Christmas?

Colonel ASHLEY: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Road Transport Lighting Bill, which would make it obligatory for pedal cyclists to carry either a red rear lamp or a red reflector, has passed Report stage in this House. I hope that sufficient time will be available for the Third Reading to be taken at an early date, and for its consideration in another place this Session.

Mr. HARRIS: What is a push bicycle?

Colonel ASHLEY: A bicycle pushed by a foot.

ROAD CONSTRUCTION, MIDDLESEX (RAILWAY BRIDGES).

Mr. R. MORRISON: 39.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, since 1920, schemes of road construction in the county of Middlesex have required the building of 25 bridges over and under railways; that, although negotiations for the construction of these bridges have been going on for nearly seven years, there are still seven bridges not started; and, in view of the fact that a large sum of public money has been spent upon constructing roads which cannot be fully used by the public, will he make representations to the railway companies concerned to bring the negotiations to an early settlement?

Colonel ASHLEY: lam aware that seven of the bridges mentioned by the hon. Member have not yet been begun, but I understand that the negotiations relative to these particular bridges have not been so prolonged as is suggested, and in two cases have only recently been opened. In two other cases agreements have already been entered into enabling work to be commenced, and I hope that in the remaining cases a satisfactory issue will very shortly be reached.

Mr. MORRISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling that some of the railway companies concerned have been unnecessarily holding up these negotiations, and in view of the very large amount of public money involved will he see whether these roads cannot be made available to the public?

Colonel ASHLEY: In two of the cases negotiations have only just been begun because the county council concerned has only just decided to do that section of the circular road.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: In the case of the Watford by-pass a large arm of that road, on which many thousands have been spent, is held up although seven weeks have elapsed since the agreement was sent to the railway company concerned?

Colonel ASHLEY: If my hon. Friend will communicate the facts to me further I will look into the matter.

ROAD FUND.

Colonel GRETTON: 41.
asked the Minister of Transport what large works
are in progress chargeable, or partly chargeable, to the Road Fund, and the amounts estimated as remaining to be paid by the Road Fund and by the local authorities in each case; and if any large undertakings are about to be begun?

Colonel ASHLEY: The larger works carried out by local authorities with assistance from the Road Fund are too numerous to be comprised in a reply to a Parliamentary question, but their scope may be gauged from the figures which I quoted on 22nd November in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Tamworth Division (Sir E. Iliffe) and of which I am sending my right hon. and gallant Friend a copy. The sums allocated from the revenues of the Road Fund, for the current financial year, to assist works of improvement or new construction, as distinguished from "maintenance," are set out in paragraph 78 of the last Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund.

Colonel GRETTON: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say how far the Road Fund is pledged for works in the years to come after this year?

Colonel ASHLEY: I could not give the exact figures without notice.

Colonel GRETTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this information is asked for in the question, and can he not, after consideration, answer it in the form of a Paper?

Colonel ASHLEY: I can give the right hon. and gallant Member figures for the works expedited for the relief of unemployment. There is £15,000,000 still unspent of which £10,000,000 is from the Road Fund, and £5,000,000 from the local authorities.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is it not a fact that works have been held up in consequence of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has pinched millions out of the Fund?

SUBURBAN TRAINS, LIVERPOOL STREET (OVERCROWDING).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 43.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the overcrowding of the trains at Liverpool Street Station at certain hours of the
day; and whether, he will take steps in the proposed Bill of next year to mitigate or prevent this overcrowding?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am afraid that under present circumstances some overcrowding of trains running to and from Liverpool Street is unavoidable during certain hours of the day. With regard to the last part of the question, I do not contemplate the introduction of legislation to alter the existing obligation of railway companies to provide reasonable facilities for traffic.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Could not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman use his authority to have these suburban lines electrified?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have been in the last two or three years in communication with the railway companies concerned. I am sorry my efforts have not been more successful.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether there is any possibility of the early construction of the line at Stratford, which was supposed to relieve Liverpool Street?

Colonel ASHLEY: I could not say without notice.

MOTOR ROADS.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 44.
asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been drawn to the success of the autostrade that go from Milan to Como, Varese, and Lake Maggiore; and whether, in view of the great congestion of traffic on the roads at present, he will consider a national scheme of autostrade or motor roads, one to the West of England, one to Birmingham and Liverpool, and one to Newcastle and Edinburgh?

Colonel ASHLEY: My attention has frequently been called to the new toll roads in North Italy known as autostrade. In the circumstances of this country, however, I am not prepared to advise the diversion of the Road Fund from its present purpose of assisting local authorities in the maintenance, improvement and extension of the existing highway system.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does my right hon. and gallant Friend realise how very successful these roads have been in avoiding congestion in the hills: and
does he not consider, in view of the growing congestion in this country, that it is necessary to look to the future and to have broad motor roads running right through the country?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the question on the Paper.

Captain A. EVANS: May I ask a supplementary question?

Mr. SPEAKER: We are having too many to-day.

CHARING CROSS BRIDGE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 59.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can inform the House as to the progress which has been made by the committee of engineers who were appointed in March last to examine the scheme of the Royal Commission for a double-decker road and railway bridge at Charing Cross, having regard to its engineering, financial and aesthetic aspects; and when it is likely that their Report will be submitted to Government and to Parliament?

Colonel ASHLEY: The examination of the scheme of the Royal Commission for a double decker road and railway bridge at Charing Cross is for the present directed primarily to its engineering and financial aspects. The problem is one of great difficulty and complexity, and although all possible progress is being made, I do not anticipate that the engineers charged with the investigation will be in a position to report before next spring. I should add that the engineers received their instructions on 14th May last, and not in March, as stated in the question.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the fact that the very important recommendations of the Royal Commission are all held up pending the issue of this Report, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Committee to report at the very earliest possible moment?

Colonel ASHLEY: Certainly, but I would not like to press them unduly. When you are going to spend from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000, I think a month's more investigation may be economical in the end.

Mr. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman justify 12 months to think over a project of this kind?

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (ALTERNATIVE VOTE).

Sir F. SANDERSON: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will consider during the lifetime of the present Parliament introducing legislation to provide for the use of the alternative vote at the next General Election, so that any Government which is returned may have a majority representation?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): No, Sir.

Mr. HARRIS: Would the right hon Gentleman consider the appointment of a committee of inquiry on the lines of the Speaker's Conference, which took place during the War Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I do not see any advantage in that course.

ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether his speech adumbrating a renewal of relations with Russia has yet received any response from the Russian Government; and whether he proposes to take any more steps in the matter in view of the fact that a resumption of relations must take place at Geneva?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to both parts of this question is in the negative.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Arising out of that negative answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not convinced that it would be in the interests of the trade of this country that the proposals adumbrated in his speech should be carried out, and, if so, is he taking any steps whatever to bring about that desirable arrangement?

The PRIME MINISTER: If I may use that word, I adumbrated the conditions under which we would be prepared to consider resuming relations. When those conditions are acceded to, it may be possible to make progress—not otherwise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Must the starts in any fresh arrangement' come from the other side? Is it impossible for us to-open up negotiations in view of the effect upon the trade of this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have not yet had any assurance that the Russian Government would cease to interfere in our internal affairs.

Mr. W. THORNE: If we want to communicate with the Russian Government, how is it done, and if they want to communicate with us, how is that done?

The PRIME MINISTER: I suppose through the usual channels.

IMPERIAL WAR MUSEUM.

Viscount SANDON: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to secure full and adequate accommodation for the Imperial War Museum; and how much extra this would cost?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): The requirements of the Imperial War Museum generally are, I understand, under consideration by the Royal Commission on the National Museums and Galleries. In the meantime the possibility of providing certain additional storage accommodation is being explored by the Office of Works.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that Entertainments Duty is charged on concerts arranged for the benefit of the British Legion; why these concerts are not exempt from this tax like those arranged for other charitable purposes; and whether in future he will allow them to be exempt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of the cases he has in mind I will have the matter investigated and communicate with him.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Sir W. de FRECE: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the cost to the State of extending, either under the insurance scheme or under the existing Old Age Pensions Acts, old age pensions to elderly women between 65 and 70
who will not, for whatever reason, come under the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Subject to the maintenance of the means test under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908–1924, in cases other than those in which a right to pension would be conferred by the insurance qualification, the extra cost may be estimated at the present time at between nine and ten million pounds a year.

Mr. SHEPHERD: 73.
asked the Minister of Health whether arrangements could be made whereby on bank holidays widows could be paid their pensions in advance rather than two or three days after the normal date of payment?

Sir K. WOOD: I would remind the hon. Member that, in compliance with Subsection (2) of Section 28 of the Contributory Pensions Act, every pension is normally paid weekly in advance. It has been arranged, with the consent of the Treasury that when the prescribed day for payment is a bank holiday, payment may be made on the last weekday before. My right hon. Friend regrets, however, that it will not be possible to give effect to this arrangement as regards pensions payable on Tuesday the 27th December next, Monday, the 26th December, being also a bank holiday. Pensions in respect of the week ending 3rd January, 1928, will, therefore, be paid on the 28th December, 1927, that is one day after the normal date of payment.

ESTATE DUTY.

Captain GARRO-JONES: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the action of those persons who have in the exercise of their legal right taken steps to avoid the payment of Estate Duty by conveying their estates, inter vivos, to their heirs; and whether he will take steps to repair this and any similar leakage in the channels of public revenue?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Under existing law, gifts inter vivos made by an individual within three years of his death are liable to Estate Duty on such death.

Captain GARRO-JONES: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that this question refers to gifts which have been made more than three years before the
death of the testator; and has he made any estimate of the enormous sums which have been lost to the Exchequer every year by this practice?

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is a matter which should properly form part of the six or seven weeks Debate on financial topics which takes place every year.

TURKEY (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Sir B. PETO: 55.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can give any information as to the progress of the hearing of claims arising out of the internment of vessels of the British mercantile marine in Turkey during the late War; and particularly whether he can say when the investigation of these cases is likely to be complete, and what progress has been made in the settlement of claims?

Mr. SAMUEL: The Inter-Allied Commission for the Assessment of Damage Suffered in Turkey, has assessed approximately two-thirds of the total number of claims submitted to it and is engaged in paying an advance of 40 per cent. of amounts awarded. It is not yet possible to say when the work of the Commission will be completed. I have no special information about the category of claims referred to in the question, but if my hon. Friend cares to give me particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will look into the matter.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FUND.

Mr. HAYES: 56.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received representations from the Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners Association asking that the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund should be wound up and the proceeds applied for the benefit of existing widows and pensioners whose circumstances to-day, in view of present conditions, are rendered more difficult?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply. I have seen a copy of the document in question, but I am afraid I
can add nothing to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 31st May last.

Mr. HAYES: What is it proposed to do with the residue of the fund, amounting to about £250,000?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Gentleman will refer to my answer, he will see that I said that the fund was in process of being wound up, but that any scheme for the immediate distribution of the assets would be contrary to the interests of the widows and orphans for whose benefit the fund was intended.

Mr. THOMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has any knowledge of this fund?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think not.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

HOLBORN AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.

Colonel DAY: 60.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the new Holborn automatic telephone exchange is now working satisfactorily; and whether the telephone authorities have received any complaints with regard to the change over of this exchange to the automatic system?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson): The new Holborn automatic exchange is working satisfactorily. It is inevitable that some difficulties should be encountered in connection with a change of system involving so complete an alteration in mechanism and in methods of operation, both on the part of the staff and of subscribers. The complaints received related mainly to initial difficulties occurring during the transition period and cannot be separated as between those due to defects in the apparatus or in the operating and those attributable to inexperience on the part of subscribers.

Colonel DAY: Is it not a fact that most of these defects were caused through the subscribers not having sufficient instructions, and will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration, in
the change over of any other exchanges, the desirability of full instructions being given?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we did our best to see that full instructions were available.

TELEPHONE INSTALLATIONS

Sir W. de FRECE: 64.
asked the Postmaster-General the places or districts from which he is in receipt of complaints with respect to inconveniences resulting from delayed or inadequate telephone installations?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are nearly 4,200 telephone exchanges in the country, and every endeavour is made to forecast future development throughout the system and to provide an adequate margin of spare plant. In a certain percentage of cases, however, demand from time to time temporarily overtakes supply, and in such instances, if considerable works, such as the provision of new internal equipment or the laying of a large cable, are involved, some delay may occur in meeting applications for telephone service. The list of areas in which there is a temporary shortage of telephone plant so fluctuates that information is not available in the precise form desired by my hon. Friend.

Mr. HAYES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in these times when there is a shortage of plant, a large number of people engaged in the telephone industry are unemployed in Liverpool?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I am fully aware of that.

FACILITIES, NORTH-EAST LINCOLNSHIRE.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 61.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the delays in postal delivery in North Somercotes and the north-east of Lincolnshire; and what steps he has taken to remedy the delay?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Complaint has been received with regard to the time of the morning delivery in the North Somercotes district, and additional staff will be provided to remedy this. There has also been recently some delay in delivery owing to late running of mail trains, and representations have been made to the railway company with the view of securing a more punctual service.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 63.
asked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been called to the interference by high-power transmission sets or dynamos with the telephone system in north-east Lincolnshire; and what steps he is taking to mitigate this nuisance?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: I have no knowledge of such interference with the telephone system in north-east Lincolnshire. If my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish me with particulars of cases he has in mind, I shall be glad to investigate them.

STAMP DENOMINATIONS.

Captain CAZALET: 62.
asked the Postmaster-General whether the Post Office will consider the issuing of a 4½d. stamp in view of the fact that registration costs 3d. and the ordinary postal rate for letters is 1½d., and that the issue of a stamp of this value would be of great convenience to business firms?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: There are eight denominations of stamps under 6d. in value, and I do not think that the expense of issuing a further denomination could be justified, particularly as registered envelopes embossed with a stamp to the value of 4½d. are sold at all post offices.

Captain CAZALET: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was an issue of 4½d. stamps in 1892, and that the use of these stamps would not only be a convenience to the public, but an economy to the Post Office?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: If I could be assured on the last point, I should view it in another light, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that the financial conditions now are unhappily very different from what they were in 1892.

TRANSATLANTIC TELEPHONE SERVICE (CHARGES).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 66.
asked the Postmaster-General whether, seeing that the sums charged for transatlantic telephonic communication are so high as to preclude all but business and emergency calls for the average citizen, he can see his way to make a recommendation to the authorities on the other side of the Atlantic to have a reduced price, say on Sundays, so as to make it possible for
conversations to be enjoyed between families and friends in Great Britain, Canada and the United States of America?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: As stated in my reply of 15th November to my hon. Friend's previous question, my associates of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company and I are agreed that it is too early to consider any alteration of the present charges. My hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a very great boon to many families on both sides of the Atlantic?

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: The suggestion shall be borne in mind.

Mr. LAMB: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind also that if and when reductions in charges are at all possible, those resident in rural areas in this country have a prior claim?

LONDON TELEPHONE DIRECTORY (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 65.
asked the Postmaster-General what net sums for advertisements have been obtained for the last three issues, respectively, of the London Telephone Directory; and what efforts, if any, are being made to increase this form of revenue?

Mr. SAMUEL: I have been asked to reply. The revenue to the Stationery Office in respect of advertisements in the last three issues of the London Telephone Directory is:



Revenue


Issue.
£


October, 1926
27,116


April, 1927
28,000


October, 1927
30,000


The last two figures are subject to confirmation on audit.
In regard to the second part of the question, the advertising contractor has a financial interest in increasing the revenue, and my hon. Friend may be assured that all practicable steps in this direction are taken.

PENSIONS (STATISTICS).

Mr. SHEPHERD: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the aver-
age duration of State pensions to, and the average age at retirement of, police (based upon Metropolitan figures), blind persons, civil servants, teachers (men), teachers (women), sailors (ratings service pensions), and soldiers (service pensions)?

Mr. SAMUEL: As the answer contains a number of figures, perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The following are the approximate figures, so far as they can be ascertained:


Service
Average Age in Retirement
Average Duration of Pension


Police(based upon Metropolitan Police figures only).
47½
20


Blind persons
not applicable
not available.


Civil Servants
58
12½


Teachers (men)
61
not available.


Teachers (women)
58


Sailors (ratings Service Pensions).
43
23


Soldiers (Service Pensions).
40
25

Blind persons may apply for pensions on attaining the age of 50. There has not yet been sufficient experience to enable the average duration of teachers' pensions under the Acts of 1918 and 1925 or of pensions to blind persons to be determined.

PATRINGTON FARM COLONY.

Mr. FENBY: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture how many acres of land are still being farmed by the Ministry on the Patrington Colony, East Yorkshire; how many ex-service men have ceased to be employed; how many are still employed; and how many are now under notice of dismissal; and whether he can state the reasons why these men have been dismissed or are under notice of dismissal?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): The land which was formerly used for the purposes of the Patrington Farm Settlement was surrendered to the Commissioners of Crown Lands on 5th April, 1927, and none of
it is now being farmed by the Ministry. The total area was 2,363 acres, of which 991 acres have been let to tenants, the remaining 1,372 acres being still in hand. On 5th April, 1927, 29 ex-service men, formerly employed on the settlement, remained. Four of these men have since left voluntarily to take up other work, and three others, who are now tenants of smallholdings under the Commissioners, have been dismissed from regular employment, but will continue to be employed, if they wish, for occasional work on the farms in hand. In accordance with the universal practice of the district, married horsemen are being replaced by hired lads, working under a head horseman, and this change will necessitate the dismissal of three more men from regular employment; but these men will be allowed for the present to remain in occupation of their cottages, and efforts will be made to provide them with temporary work so long as they require it.

Mr. RILEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had any applications from the dismissed men for small holdings, and is any of the land left over being considerably settled?

Mr. GUINNESS: I mentioned in my answer that three of the men who have been dismissed have been given small holdings. I am not sure whether any further application has been made, but I will inquire.

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the question of dividing the remaining land into small holdings?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have provided certain small holdings, at considerable expense, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, this land is not peculiarly suitable for small holdings.

DEFENCE OF THE REALM REGULATIONS.

Major STEEL: 69.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take the necessary steps to remove all war restrictions and Regulations which have not yet been removed at the earliest possible opportunity, in view of the fact that it is now nine years since the Armistice was signed?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not sure what restrictions my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but if he is referring to the general closing hours for shops, I must await the Report of the Departmental Committee, which has been inquiring into this question. I expect to receive the Report very shortly.

Major STEEL: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the particular restriction to which I was referring was the one dealing with bona fide travellers, and does he recognise that there is a very strong feeling that these restrictions, which were supposed to be temporary for the period of the War only, should all now be removed?

Viscountess ASTOR: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time for speeches.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

BOARDS OF GUARDIANS (LOANS).

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 70.
asked the Minister of Health in how many cases he has exercised his powers to defer payment of interest and the repayment of the principal of temporary loans made to boards of guardians for the relief of the able-bodied unemployed; and, in view of the heavy burdens placed on local authorities, will he use his powers more freely in this direction in the future?

Sir K. WOOD: Loans have been advanced by my right hon. Friend on the recommendation of the Goschen Committee to 29 boards of guardians. Payment of interest has been deferred in five cases and repayment of principal in 28 cases. The terms of repayment in every case are determined after full consideration of the particular circumstances of the area, and deferment is granted wherever the circumstances so require.

CASUAL WARDS.

Mr. BROMFIELD: 71.
asked the Minister of Health the number of youths to be found in the casual wards at the latest date for which he has information?

Sir K. WOOD: Information as to the casual wards outside the Metropolis is not available, but my right hon. Friend is informed that of 705 persons relieved
in metropolitan casual wards on the night of Thursday, 24th November, 44 were between the ages of 16 and 21.

Mr. BROMFIELD: 72.
asked the Minister of Health whether his Department will consider the question of taking a census of the vagrants in the casual wards of the country on a given night, in order that the age and sex of the vagrants may be established, and the proportion of those who are not habitual vagrants but are temporarily unemployed?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend will consider this suggestion.

SMALL-POX (VACCINATION).

Sir W. DAVISON: 76.
asked the Minister of Health whether having regard to the recent increase in cases of small-pox by reason of the failure of large bodies of the population to protect themselves and their children by means of vaccination, he will take early steps to discontinue the practice of printing' a form of declaration objecting to vaccination on the vaccination form which is handed to the parent when the birth of a child is registered, a practice which often causes misunderstanding and neglect to vaccinate, and will revert to the former practice, which obtained under previous Conservative administrations, of simply printing a notification on the vaccination form that if the parent has a conscientious objection to vaccination he can obtain a form of declaration to that effect from the vaccination officer?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend has considered this suggestion but has come to the conclusion that it is not advisable to make any further changes in law or practice until he has had an opportunity of considering the report of the Committee presided over by Sir Humphry Rolleston.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the recent serious increase in small-pox, and the fact that every previous Conservative administration has been of opinion that this practice materially caused a failure to vaccinate, will he consider dealing with this matter departmentally?

Sir K. WOOD: I think this report will shortly be available, and my right hon. Friend will consider the suggestion "in the bght of the recommendations.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: How shortly will this long deferred report be likely to come forth?
Will the hon Gentleman kindly press for it?

Sir K. WOOD: I do not think that it will be very long now.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Have the Ministry of Health—not this particular Minister, but the Ministry of Health—not found out that small-pox was caused because of insanitary conditions under which people lived, and is it not because these have been largely removed that small-pox is nearly extinct?

Sir K. WOOD: There is no foundation for that statement.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it was the Socialist Government that last introduced this practice, and that it has previously been altered by every Conservative Government?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: Can the Prime Minister tell us what business he proposes for the rest of the week?

The PRIME MINISTER: If the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill be concluded to-morrow, Thursday will be given for a Debate on the Motion of Censure. If the Committee stage be not completed, we shall resume consideration of the Bill on Thursday. If time is available on any day, other Orders will be taken.

Mr. MacDONALD: Can we have any information about Friday?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot give any information to-day about Friday.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Prime Minister aware that his reluctance to grant a day for this Vote of Censure, coupled with the fact that the Government did not make use of the time which was available early this morning for proceeding with the Unemployment Insurance Bill, is creating a great impression in the country that he seeks to avoid this issue?

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the

Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— (The Prime Minister.)

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 135.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 28th November, 1927.]

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 5.—(Amendment as to statutory conditions for receipt of benefit.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain FitzRoy): When the business was interrupted this morning, the Committee had just negatived the first of two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), the second one—in page 4, to leave out from the word "contributor" in line 8 to the end of line 10—of course being consequential on the first. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) —in page 4, line 10, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that when the failure of the applicant to fulfil such condition is due to prolonged periods of sickness he shall not thereby be debarred from the receipt of unemployment insurance benefit
—would be more appropriately moved to Sub-section (4) of the Clause.

Mr. E. BROWN: On a point of Order. Do I understand that if that Amendment is considered in connection with Sub-section (4) I can raise the question of the permanent effect of the Bill upon persons who have had long and continued sickness? I am not quite clear whether I should be in order in raising that question. I do not wish to raise the question of the effect of the transitional period upon the sick, but of the effect of the Bill upon the sick after 1930, which is a very different point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Subsection (4) of the Clause raises the particular point as to the position of people who have been incapacitated by illness, and it is on that Sub-section that I think the hon. Member's Amendment ought to be considered.

Mr. HARRIS: On a point of Order. Might not the sickness from which the
man was suffering prevent him from paying the 30 contributions and so prevent him from qualifying for benefit?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It might possibly do so, but I think that point has nothing to do with this Sub-section.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. BROWN: I did not put my Amendment to Sub-section (4), because that specifically says "falling within the period of two years mentioned." The question I wish to raise is a very different one. It is the question of people falling sick after the two years, and I cannot see, with all respect, that it would be appropriate on Sub-section (4), as it is a very different question.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must see if there is another way of getting in his Amendment.

Mr. BROWN: May I, with all respect, ask your guidance on this point? It is a very important point, namely, what will happen when these two years are over? It concerns the whole future relationship of the Bill to the sick, and I cannot see how I can draft an Amendment in any other way. I cannot see any other part of Clause 5, or any part of the Bill where this particular point can appropriately be raised. There are a number of Employment Exchange committees who have sent me resolutions about this subject, and there is a great deal of anxiety felt. I therefore ask for your guidance, as I do not wish to lose my opportunity of raising the point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: At any rate, it cannot be raised at this particular point. It is not for me to say where it can be raised. If the hon. Member cares to come and consult me later on, he can do so.

Mr. BROWN: It is a very important point. You rule it out of order here, but I do not understand why, and I wish to understand why. There are thousands of men who will be affected in years to come. Surely I am entitled to your guidance now on the point. The Amendment is on the Paper, and is a material one. I cannot see how it can be raised on Sub-section (4), because it is not material to that Sub-section, and, unless I have your guidance, I cannot see in what part of the Clause the Amendment
can be put down. I assure you, Captain FitzRoy, this is a very important point indeed.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No doubt it is a very important point, but at the moment it is not in order.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: On a point of Order. Are we not entitled to know from you, Captain FitzRoy, with very great respect, the reason this Amendment is out of order at this particular place, because when you ruled it out of order you implied that it would be in order on another Sub-section. Are we not entitled to ask you to state your reasons, and are we not entitled to know?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no obligation whatsoever on me to state my reasons. The Amendment might be suitable in another place, but it is not suitable here.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Do you rule that it would be in order to move it in another place in the Bill?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, I do not.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to give notice that I shall hand in the Amendment to be moved in another place in the Bill.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Shall we be in order in raising this point on Sub-section (4)?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: A question of this sort can undoubtedly be raised on Sub-section (4).

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that where an insured contributor proves in the prescribed manner that he is normally engaged in an occupation which in the preceding twelve months next preceding his application for benefit has had an unemployment percentage exceeding fifteen per cent. of the insured persons engaged in such occupation, the said period of two years shall have effect as if there were substituted for it a period of two years increased by the length of time during which the said percentage rate of unemployment exceeded fifteen per cent.
In moving the Amendment standing in my name and that of my hon. Friends, I desire to say that our object is to try to elicit if we can from the Minister some explanation and amplification of
the statement he made yesterday in Debate on the question dealing with the 30 contributions. He said:
If, as I pointed out the other day, our expectations are not realised, it will be perfectly possible to deal with the situation before that time arrives in 1929."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1927; col. 177, Vol. 211.]
The Minister on several occasions has said that he dislikes the discretion left to him under the existing law, and one of the objects of this Bill is to remove this descretion. I would like to ask him whether his proposal yesterday does not, in effect, involve a renewal of that very discretion. It is with a view to providing an automatic test, an automatic revision of the 30 contribution Rule in certain contingencies that may arise between now and April, 1929, that we have put down this Amendment. It is quite conceivable that the Minister may not like our particular plan, but, if so, may I respectfully suggest that he should either develop one now, or promise that before the Report stage he will make some suggestion? Will he tell us, for example, what it is he proposes to apply in order to determine whether or not his expectations have been realised? Will he. for example, have quarterly samples taken on a much more extensive scale, in order to learn whether or not the assumptions in the White Paper are, in fact, proving correct In other words, we should very much like him, if he can, to amplify the statement which he made yesterday, and I, personally, believe that if he can see his way to doing so, more especially if he can obtain from his colleague the Minister of Health a promise that he will deal with the results of applying the 30 contribution Rule, then I am sure I can speak for my hon. Friends and, I believe, for the party opposite, that this Bill will go through very much more quickly than otherwise would be likely.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON: I want to add two or three words to what has been said by my hon. Friend in support of this Amendment, and I do it for this reason. There was left in the minds, not only of Members on this side, but in every part of the Committee a feeling that an unsatisfactory state of affairs remained early this morning over this Clause which we have been debating. In my attempts to move a certain Amendment, to which
I am not going to speak again, I ad-canoed certain definite figures which I challenged the Minister either to refute or to confirm, and if there be any truth in what I have advanced, then in my area, and others affected like it, a very serious position arises. We want some assurance that the Minister will deal with this position. I want to say, quite frankly and definitely, that it is not sufficient to say that we trust to future developments, without some statement being made for our guidance. In my particular area, shipbuilding has not quite reached the peak, but I have had again an analysis taken of the figures of unemployment in my area, and I have them with me, but I am not going to burden the Committee with these figures again. I have also taken expert opinion, not only from the shipbuilders of my district, but I have gone also to those organisations and institutions that are especially interested in the construction of shipping, and my expert opinion is that if we are able to employ from 5 to 7 per cent. more shipbuilders than we are at present, that would practically be our peak period. It is true that we have in the last six months reduced unemployment by some 6,000, but we have a heavy percentage of unemployment yet, and I have a great deal of concern as to what is going to happen in two years' time. I am satisfied from the position, and the opinions that I have obtained with very great care, that it is not sufficient to say that in two years you will be able to have the position reduced to an 8 per cent. basis.
There is another point which arises out of these figures. Apart from the shipbuilders, there are also in the building trade nearly 1,000 unemployed in my district just now. I do not know what the position in other constituencies is, but I find that they are quickly overtaking building operations in my area, and I take the view that in two years they will not be so well employed. At any rate, it may mean adding to our unemployment. But I do say that, taking into consideration all that was advanced yesterday—I am not complaining of the Minister—I think that the speeches from this side justify a more extended reply than we have got. I would indicate that there is quite a section of the supporters of the Government very much concerned with the operation of this Clause as it stands.
With all the ability I have, and with all my force—because I cannot go down to my constituency, knowing as I do that the question will be put to me, "In the face of the facts produced, are you satisfied? Are we to understand that 1,400 men may be put on to Poor Law relief if this Bill is put into operation straight away?" I must either say yes or no—I say it is a very grave hardship on those supporting the Government to be placed in the difficult and anomalous position. I hope, therefore, the Government at least will give us some assurance that by the time this Bill reaches, possibly, its Report stage, there will be some determination or desire to give us a lead in the direction that is proposed by this Amendment, which I have pleasure in supporting.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, and my hon. Friend who supported him, have really said nothing about this Amendment. As this Amendment represents what in the view of the Mover and Seconder should be the method adopted by the State, it is absolutely incumbent upon them to show that it will achieve the end they have in view. I want to explain in a few sentences that this Amendment, as proposed really, is unacceptable for two reasons. First, because it is administratively impossible to carry it out; and, in the second place because it is unsound in principle. If hon. Members will bear with me for a minute or two I will explain what I mean. The Amendment says:
Provided that where an insured contributor proves in the prescribed manner that he is normally engaged in an occupation which in the 12 months next preceding his application for benefits has had an unemployment percentage exceeding 15 per cent.
Those words make it not only ambiguous, but impossible to cary out. If you take an industry like shipbuilding you may have 20, 30 or 40 occupations within that one industry, and you cannot for a purpose such as that suggested, classify satisfactorily the various occupations within a certain industry. Probably my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment will contend that if you substitute the word "industry" for "occupation" the difficulty will disappear, but really that does not carry us very much farther,
and the difficulties we should encounter after accepting this Amendment would be just as formidable if the word "industry" were substituted for "occupation." Our classification is as accurate as we can possibly make it. When a man comes to us and says that he is engaged in such-and-such an industry we have no reason to suppose that he is not engaged in that industry, and, consequently, he is classified as belonging to the industry to which he says he belongs; but the moment you adopt this Amendment we should have to adjudicate in every individual case as to whether a man did or did not belong to a particular industry. If this Amendment be accepted you will be attaching certain advantages to one industry which are not enjoyed by another. It would then become of paramount importance to adjudicate upon the claim of a man who claims to belong to one industry rather than to another.
I will give the sort of case I have in mind. A man might say that he was a woodworker on a ship or a joiner engaged in house building. This man might be in both those industries at different times, and as hon. Members know, we should be in very grave danger at once of getting involved in all those questions of craft versus industry, which are extremely diffcult matters to decide, and have to be treated with the greatest possible care. The Amendment provides:
That where an insured contributor proves in the prescribed manner that he is normally engaged in an occupation which in the preceding 12 months next preceding his application for benefit has had an unemployment percentage exceeding 15 per cent.
That would mean if you put into administrative operation the suggestion contained in this Amendment that you would have to collect all periods of over 15 per cent. of unemployment during the last 12 months and add them to the two years' period. That would involve a census, week by week, in order to ascertain who came within that provision and who did not. Of course, anything of that kind is quite impracticable.
I want to deal with this matter with some care, because it raises a very important and rather difficult question. There is another consideration which I would ask the Committee to consider. It often happens that an industry is
slack in one place and busy, or comparatively busy, in another district. All these people pay the same contributions. The effect of accepting this Amendment would be that a man would be permitted to add to his qualifications because the conditions in the same industry are bad elsewhere. Conversely, a man might not be able to improve his qualifications because his industry might be more flourishing somewhere else, and that would draw a distinction between a man in an industry which, as a whole, was bad in a place where the industry might be flourishing—he would get the extra qualification—and another in a good industry in a district where it might be very slack, who, in spite of the slackness, would get no extra qualification. It seems to me that in some cases it is undoubtedly in the interest of a man to leave the industry in which he is engaged when it is in a bad condition and try his lot in another industry where things are better. The principle of this Amendment would have exactly the opposite effect to that which is intended, because it would tend to induce a man to remain in one industry when really it is in his own interest to move to another.

Mr. VIANT: Have you not power to deal with a man in those circumstances under the present law? If a man will not go to a place where there is work, have you not, at the present moment, power to compel him to go or stop his benefit?.

Mr. BETTERTON: This Amendment raises quite a different question. It proposes that in the case I have indicated a man should have a special or additional qualification if it so happens that in the industry in which he is engaged unemployment is in excess of a certain percentage. In that case the man would be able to add that period to the two years prescribed in the Bill, and he would have an advantage to that extent over the man in the same district but in an industry where the percentage was less than 15 per cent.

Mr. HARDIE: Surely the quota would govern the case which the Parliamentary Secretary has mentioned.

Mr. BETTERTON: I do not think it would as the Amendment is drafted. I
do not want to go again into the question which was debated yesterday relating to the 30 contributions which we regard as a fair test as to whether a man should come within the insurance fund or not. Under a Clause, which I cannot discuss now, dealing with the transitional period, we have endeavoured to mitigate hardships of this kind as far as we can, and we really cannot fetter this scheme, and hamper our action in the future, by accepting an Amendment embodying such a proposal as that which is contained in the Amendment. With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, I might remind him of what the Minister of Labour said on Monday last in the House in reference to the transitional period. If at the end of the transitional period should any cataclysm or disaster occur in the meantime, and our calculations be very far from being realised, which I do not for a moment anticipate, there will he time for Parliament to take action with regard to the situation. I hope that I have said enough to satisfy the Committee that it would be inadvisable to accept this Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You have not made it clear at all.

Mr. BETTERTON: The Amendment is inappropriate to the scheme we have presented, and it is unacceptable because it cannot be administratively carried out, and because it is not sound in principle.

Mr. HAYDAY: I think there is a good deal to be said for the Amendment, and while I appreciate that there might be administrative difficulties, they are less important than the difficulties of insured persons who would be brought within the range of benefit under this Amendment. I do not say that you should take the whole industry, because industry does not always leave the deadweight of its depression equally throughout the country, and it is often more keenly felt in particular areas. I cannot imagine that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment desires that in a given Employment Exchange area, where an applicant can prove that he is normally engaged in an occupation which at that time had shown 15 per cent. of unemployment, he should then have the benefit of that 12 months during the period if
he could show that the 15 per cent. of unemployment prevailed.
There is no such difficulty as discrimination between the house carpenter and the ship's carpenter, and, indeed, one of my hon. Friends on this side has pointed out that that labour is always available for transfer from the one occupation to the other. If, however, a man is thrown out of employment in the shipyard, and if, in that particular occupation of the shipbuilding industry, he can show that 15 per cent. have been unemployed, surely, after what has been said by the Minister and by the Parliamentary Secretary, and after the reading of the extract from the Minister's own speech, it would be possible to deal with any special set of circumstances. A wise man will say that, before you inflict injury, you should try to avoid its infliction, and, as there is the doubt, and the possibility of this damage being inflicted, I feel that the Minister might well accept the principle embodied in this Amendment.
Taking the mining industry, the Parliamentary Secretary knows that, while in a given area there may be a large number either on short time or fully employed, another area may be entirely closed down. I can visualise Northumberland and Durham "feeling the draught" with a heavy percentage of people unemployed, but, on the other hand, I can understand Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire not having anything like the same percentage. Therefore, it would be unwise, to my mind, to distribute a 15 per cent. average over the whole field, when the problem is more acutely felt in one area than in another. If that 15 per cent. were shown in Northumberland and Durham or in any of the South Wales coalfields, I think that in that case an unemployed person might have the full benefit and advantage of the provision suggested in this Amendment. I quite see the difficulty of the Ministry in keeping a more complete check upon occupations under this proposal, but, if I have any fault to find with the Amendment, it is that the 15 per cent. suggested is too high. The requirement of 30 stamps is based on a period with a percentage of somewhere about 7 or 8; at the moment I believe the percentage is about 9. Surely, for every 1 per cent. that you go above 9 per cent., you get added difficulties.
I would remind the Committee of one point which I think has not yet been put. I have repeatedly asked about it, but we have not yet had an explanation. I am very much concerned about the method of calculating the effect of the 30 contributions on the great number who at present are registered as unemployed. I make the basis of calculation taken by the Minister himself work out at 138,000. I mention that solely for this reason. During the whole of these discussions, no one, I think, has appreciated to the full the position of those men who are on what is termed the two-months file. Among those who are on that two-months file—numbering at the moment about 100,000—there may be quite a large percentage who have never entered into the calculations of the Minister in arriving at his figure of 56,000. No percentage is applied to them, because they are not on the live register, and I am fearful that there is quite a large percentage there who have been disqualified because they no longer have any qualification at all on which to establish a right. If in that 100,000 you have 15 or 20 per cent. who cannot in any circumstances put in a qualification such as is laid down to bring them within the Minister's discretion—which will now disappear when this Bill becomes an Act—their chances will certainly be less when the Bill becomes an Act and the condition as to 30 stamps is there. That in itself means imposing a tremendous hardship upon that number of persons, whom, surely, we want to assist. They are as genuine as any of the others. They are less fortunate than those who have been employed, but that is the worst we can say of them. Their suffering has been prolonged to a larger extent, their disabilities have increased as time has gone on, and they will be intensified under the new Act. If they are given an opportunity of proving that they come from an occupation showing, within the area of their local exchange, 15 per cent. of unemployment, it will certainly make the road easier for them.
The Minister says that this will lead to difficulties of administration, and I am certain that no one will deny that, but perhaps I may put it in this way: No one will know better than the manager or officers of the local Exchange all the difficulties associated with the interlocking of the various occupations
within an industry, and I think it would be quite easy to classify them. Classification is not the difficulty, as I see it, because, as soon as a person says that he comes from an occupation which shows within the area 15 per cent. of unemployment during the 12 months preceding the date of his application, it does not matter what department or what sub-occupation of an industry he may be following, the Exchange officials are at once able to place it. The question of testing also is very easy and simple, because, knowing the industry and its operations within their locality, they can easily keep in touch with the chambers of commerce, or they can get in touch with the trades council, which is the centre for gathering in information so far as the employes' side is concerned. There is also an additional check by reason of the fact that you have an employer, a workman and an independent person on the Court of Referees. You have the whole of the connecting links and checks closely allied with the local activities; and if there should be any reason for doubt—although I can see no reason for doubt—whether an individual applicant is just over the borderline for exclusion, or within it for inclusion, surely, in the circumstances through which we are passing any little benefit could well be left to the discretion of those in the locality, who know the circumstances sufficiently well to safeguard the interests of other insured persons and also to safeguard the interests of the Fund.
I would repeat my question, because 'it will arise persistently as we go along. Will the Minister, before this Bill gets through its Committee stage, please tell us what is the position of those 100,000 who are on the two-months file—how many are disqualified by reason of inability to come within the Minister's discretion as it is now; how many will be disqualified under the requirement of 30 contributions; how many are disqualified by reason of not genuinely seeking work or of having no reasonable hope of again being absorbed in an insurable occupation; and what number have left their books and got into uninsured occupations, because I can imagine a percentage there? This, really, is the mystery number of our whole insurance system. No one can quite say to what category these people belong,
except that they are just returned as having their books deposited, and as being part of the general body of unemployed. I should say that there must be a considerable number of them who are put out because they cannot qualify under the Minister's present discretion, but who might be able to qualify somewhat under the terms of this Amendment if it were included. It would, I believe, prevent a large number of the anticipated 56,000— the number according to my calculation is, as I have said, 138,000—from being totally excluded, if the Minister would apply the same percentage to the two-months file which he has applied to the previous cases he took in hand.
In all the circumstances, I feel that this Amendment does not present the difficulties which, rightly, I suppose, the Parliamentary Secretary is anxious to avoid. He desires that nothing shall enter into the general administrative machinery that will hamper or handicap it in giving the full value of its services to the general body of applicants. I quite understand that, and I can understand other people, who do not know the circumstances, feeling that there would be difficulties in industries such as mining, iron and steel, shipbuilding and general engineering as an industry. In those industries, however, there are certain areas where 15 per cent., or perhaps even 20 per cent., does not represent the full extent of the affliction of unemployment, although, spread over the whole area of the industry, the average may not reach 15 per cent. If it does so much the better but that is all the more reason why, in view of the previous pleas for these very necessitous and depressed areas, the Minister should see what can b© done to relieve those dark spots, and I can conceive of no better means than accepting the principle embodied in this Amendment.

Mr. LUMLEY: The Committee will remember that last night some of us expressed fears as to the results of the condition to which the Committee was asked to agree. The Minister, in his reply, did not dispel those fears, except to say that he did not share them. Although we hope that he is right and we are wrong, it does seem to us that the whole thing is a bit of a gamble, and that the Minister himself does not regard it as a certainty. If I may read one sentence
from his speech to the Committee yesterday, he said:
If, as I pointed out the other day, our expectations are not realised, it will be perfectly possible to deal with the situation before that time arrives in 1929."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1927; col. 177, Vol. 211.]
The Amendment which we are now discussing was put down with a view to drawing from the Minister, if possible, some idea of what he bad in mind as to how the situation would be dealt with if his expectations were not realised. The Amendment was hastily, perhaps clumsily, drafted, but it attempted to represent one method of dealing with that situation. The Parliamentary Secretary has shown that it is administratively impossible, and it seems to me that he has adduced arguments to that effect which cannot be refuted, and which I, for one, accept; but we still want to know what the Minister has in mind in regard to dealing with the situation if his expectations are not realised. We have been told that one method which we have hastily suggested is administratively impossible, but it may be that, if we press in 1929 that something should be done, we shall be told that it will be financially unsound. I think we ought to know what the Minister meant by saying, "if his expectations are not realised." Did he mean only if a real cataclysm arises, or only if the figures in his White Paper are falsified? Also, what method has he in mind for dealing with that situation when it arises?

Mr. HARRIS: We have had one or two speeches from loyal supporters of the Government, and I and the Committee are convinced that they have only taken this line because of their experience and knowledge and their desire to make the Measure workable and not allow the whole system of insurance to break down. I quite agree that if we had arrived at an ideal state of affairs, the much discussed cycle was in working operation, and employment was normal, Amendments of this kind would not be necessary, but it is no use blinking the fact that owing to causes outside the control of the Government, world causes, trade conditions are not normal. Owing to the disorganising of our export trade, certain trades that exist almost entirely on export are faced with unemployment on such a scale that the machinery of
this new unemployment insurance scheme is bound to break down.
Take cotton textiles. In the ordinary way, unemployment runs round a certain cycle, and the percentage of unemployment is comparatively small, but owing to the disorganisation of the world, and the contracted demand for cotton goods, you have this abnormal condition. In the same way with shipbuilding. We have reason to hope that the recovery of world trade and the increased handling of goods will mean that the demand for ships will become normal, and the percentage of unemployment will be on a scale something like that anticipated by the Report. But in the meantime the whole machinery of this insurance with its 30 conditional contributions must break down and you will discredit insurance as a system of dealing with unemployment. That would be most unfortunate. I know the difficulty that amateurs feel in drafting Amendments. I have drafted as many as most private Members, and I know under what a disadvantage the private Member is as compared with the Minister, with his skilled professional draughtsmen, who have not only the advantage of giving the whole of their time but the moral authority of their profession. But where there is a will there is a way, and if the Minister accepted the principle I would recommend hon. Members to withdraw their Amendment on condition that the Minister would bring his battalions of experts to bear to draft words which could be put in operation and would be practicable.
The condition of 30 contributions will not only break down in the great centres which are the homes of the staple industries of the country. In the East End of London conditions are abnormal. One of our principal trades is the carrying trade. We have a large number of carmen who ordinarily earn their living by carrying goods to the docks. The percentage of unemployment is quite abnormal. I have tried to help many of these men to get jobs, but jobs are not obtainable. The percentage of unemployment is so large that in many cases they have only been in and out for a few weeks, such as Christmas time, and where there is a great rush of goods at certain times of the year. Under
these conditions no doubt all these men will be disqualified. They just manage to carry on under the system of extended benefit and keep off the Poor Law. In certain areas in London the whole Poor Law system is breaking down, not because it is entirely bad—I do not like it, but it has good qualities—but because too heavy a burden has been put on it. On the top of that you are going to push skilled workmen, decent workmen, who have largely been in regular work in the last 20 or 30 years, off the insurance scheme on to the Poor Law, and by that means you are going to discredit it. I can understand hon. Members above the Gangway who do not believe in a contributory scheme welcoming this new proposal of 30 contributions. Some of them want to discredit voluntary insurance.
I believe in insurance as the best and most practicable way of building over the bridge between the cycles of good and bad employment in normal times, and I do not want to see it discredited. I am not quite sure whether the Minister believes in insurance. I cannot help remembering some of the history of the Tory party before the War, and the old opposition to licking stamps. I am rather inclined to think there is much more sympathy between the two sides than people outside are conscious of. I am not sure that the Minister does not want insurance to break down and to go back to the old system of anarchy, with no proper machinery for dealing with unemployment. It looks rather like it. But if he really wants insurance to work he has an obligation to meet the speeches of his own supporters, and to try to make the Amendment workable. If not, the wise course would be to drop the Bill, and go back to the old system of extended benefit. The whole scheme will break down and the country will be faced with a problem too gigantic to contemplate. It would be most unfortunate that that should take place. I hope we shall get a little more sympathy from the Minister. He has more power than the Parliamentary Secretary. If we do not, I hope the Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. KIDD: I wonder if hon. Members who are responsible for this Amendment have considered how it could be applied to a decaying industry. A great many of
our industries will never be what they have been. I have in mind one industry which has had its ground invaded and has sought to resist the invasion with some measure of success, but it would be folly to believe that it can ever again be what it has been. I refer to the shale industry of Scotland. How would this Amendment affect it? What is to be the basis of the 15 per cent.? I should not encourage the workers to stay in that industry if they had the slightest opportunity of getting occupation elsewhere. No one realises better than I do, no one has occasion to realise better, the extraordinary burden thrown upon the neighbourhood and the extraordinary strain thrown upon the individual in the area of this shale field.
I cannot see how it will be possible to satisfy the wants of these people under an insurance scheme. If we were to apply this Amendment we should shatter any insurance scheme. To cast upon any insurance scheme, with the slightest pretence of actuarial security, a floating liability wholly indeterminate in its duration and in its possible amount would destroy the scheme from the start. The situation must be met. I only hope every encouragement will be given to stimulate the industry of the country, and that certain influences which have operated against the return of prosperity will be withdrawn, and it is in the return of prosperity and the opening up of fresh occupations that the hope of the workers in my decaying industry lies. That can only come about—[An HON. MEMBER: "Through a Labour Government!"] No, it will not come that way. That is the last way. It may come about with an opposition of a different character.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member is getting away from the Amendment.

Mr. KIDD: I was encouraged by the interruption. I think the Amendment is wholly inapplicable to an insurance scheme. I have given reasons why the situation will require some attention from the Government, but not necessarily from the Minister of Labour. The situation I have figured may—I hope it will not— require attention from the Government. When, if necessary, that attention is given, it may not come from the Ministry that is responsible for the present Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: On these benches we welcome the increasing intervention of Members of the party opposite. It is a good thing for them to share the burden of debate on this very important Bill The hon. Member who spoke last asked how the situation in the shale industry could be fitted to the terms of this Amendment. The Amendment arises because the terms of the Bill do not fit into the situation. That is the real motive that lies behind the Amendment. I think the Parliamentary Secretary treated it with less seriousness than it deserves. He exploited the innocence of the hon. Member who put it on the Paper. It is the easiest thing in the world to prove that any Amendment is administratively impossible. This Bill is administratively impossible. It will be amended long before the time comes when it is ever likely to be regarded as a permanent Measure. To explain away the Amendment by a series of excuses with regard to the difficulty of administration is really to ignore the real point. The real situation which, I imagine, has given rise to the Amendment is one of very great importance. I am not saying I agree with the precise wording of the Amendment. I am not saying that 15 per cent. is the right figure—I should like to see that mystic figure of 8 per cent. to which the right hon. Gentleman attaches so much importance—but I agree with the principle behind it.
5.0 p.m.
The fact that this Amendment becomes administratively impossible arises because of the Bill itself, for it ignores the real fundamental problem of unemployment to-day. As I have pointed out, the problem is not that of the national average. The problem is the problem of those stagnant pools of labour which may become worse and worse, while the national figure for unemployment is diminishing. That situation has not been dealt with in this Bill. Personally, in times of normal trade and normal employment, I would accept the 30 contributions in two years, because I think it would be a perfectly reasonable condition, but the whole point of the criticism which has been directed against Clause 5 is that you have a very large body of working men in respect of whom 30 stamps in two years is an absolute impossibility. The question arises: What is to be done with them? The Parliamentary Secretary's answer is, nothing. That is a very unfortunate state of affairs,
and even if this Amendment, as it stands now, were administratively unworkable I should still support it. As a matter of fact, I do not believe that it is administratively unworkable. I think the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague deserve all the administrative difficulties that can be cast upon them. If the Bill is couched in such a form and in such a way that it is bound to make trouble, theirs are the heads on whom the trouble should fall. What the Amendment now seeks to do is to put the trouble where it ought to rest, and to relieve from ineligibility for unemployment benefit that large mass of -workers in some of the staple industries of this country, who, if trade remains as it is, can never come within the four corners of the Bill.
What I think we are entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, not whether he accepts the terms of this Amendment —we do not merely want criticisms of the details of this Amendment—but what is his alternative for dealing with the problem to the discussion of which this Amendment has given rise? The right hon. Gentleman—I would not like to say he is an artful dodger—has succeeded in postponing from Clause to Clause any serious explanation of his Bill, and while we are on this Clause, we must learn, because we cannot learn elsewhere, what he really intends to do with this proved surplus of labour in the industries which are badly affected to-day. We have had no answer. I think it is a very serious question. I think we ought to press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to this specific question. If he will not accept this Amendment, what proposals has he to make to deal with this question? Is it his intention to leave the people in mining, in shipbuilding, in the iron and steel trades and in ether depressed trades without any hope of reaping any benefit under the present Bill? If that be his declared intention, we 6hall know where we are, but at least we ought to have a perfectly clear statement as to the attitude of the Minister on this problem. Although, as I say, I do not believe that this Amendment is word perfect—I think it might be improved—the point at issue is not concerned with the details of the Amendment. I am glad the Amendment has been moved, and I welcome it at this early stage of our discussion on Clause 5.
I do not want to take words out of my hon. Friend's mouth, but I think he is less concerned about the words of his Amendment than the problem the Amendment is designed to meet. We have not had a single word on the problem from the Parliamentary Secretary, and I think we are entitled to ask the Minister for a clear statement as to whether he is prepared to see these people in depressed areas fall out of the scheme. If this be so, has he any proposal to make for dealing with them?

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), in his concluding remarks, gave away what, I think, was the whole secret of this Amendment. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Bill, and said that in his judgment the Bill was designed by the Government to bring about the break-up of contributory insurance. He said that no doubt that was the real object of my right hon. Friend. I should think it would be as true to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) is as anxious to give away his funds to the Liberal party and so destroy himself. If the objects, the splendid objects, if I may say so, which were given to the House by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) were met by the Amendment, I think there would be a lot to say for it, but there is not the slightest doubt in anybody's mind what this Amendment really does. It brings us back to yesterday's Debate on the Bill as to whether you are now to have 30 or 20 contributions. There is mot the slightest doubt in the mind of the Committee as to the objects of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He invited the Minister to withdraw the Bill and swallow his pride. That is quite a legitimate object, because I believe the chief concern of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. B. Hudson) and his hon. Friends is the question of distressed areas. It is a very legitimate concern for a representative of a distressed area to have a voice in this Committee, but those of us of the Conservative party who are supporting the Government feel that that is a matter which could much better be met by any Measures which might be introduced into this House by the Ministry of Health rather than by the Ministry of Labour.
If the hon. Member and his Friends achieve the object they have in view, it will result in the whole contributory insurance scheme being defeated. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because if an Amendment of this kind were carried, or if you reduced your contributions from 30 to 20, the effect would be the same. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman knows that if you reduce your contributions in that way you deal a definite blow at an insurance scheme which is based on a contributory system. If, of course, the hon. Gentlemen who sit on the Labour benches are desirous of taking their argument to its logical conclusion, they will say frankly, "We are not in favour of this scheme. We are in favour of an insurance scheme without any contributions at all; and we are in favour of work or maintenance."

Mr. THOMAS: May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether he really understands the Amendment of his own friends? I would ask Kim whether he is aware that this Amendment deals with those people who are engaged in a particular industry who can never fulfil the conditions already made. This Amendment seeks to relieve them.

Captain EVANS: I am afraid the right hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) was not in the Committee when the Parliamentary Secretary said it was absolutely impossible to administer the scheme under the terms of this Amendment. The questions to which we have to address ourselves to-day are practical questions, and we have to see whether it is possible to meet the views put before the Committee by the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham under the terms of this Amendment. I think it has been proved conclusively to the satisfaction of the Committee that this Amendment is purely a wrecking Amendment, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will make no attempt to interfere with the principle of this Bill. But if at the end of next year the state of industry points to the impossibility of dealing with the men the hon. Member for Whitehaven had in mind, I feel sure the Government will take any steps which are necessary to deal with this matter in connection with any Measures which they may introduce in relation to boards of guardians.

Mr. KELLY: If one were to judge the speech which we have just heard, it is
evident that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not understand the Amendment. The burden of his story was that this was an attempt to reduce the number of contributions for qualifying purposes. It is nothing of the kind. It is extending the period over which, and in which those contributions have to be paid in order that qualification may be obtained for benefit.

Captain EVANS: It is the same thing.

Mr. KELLY: It is not the same thing. The hon. and gallant Member spoke of reducing the number of contributions to 20 or 15 as against 30, which is already in the Bill. As it is nothing of the kind, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw all the observations he has made with regard to it being a wrecking Amendment of this particular Measure. I want particularly to deal with the Parliamentary Secretary who, I am sorry to say, appears to have been called out. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is in his place."] He has shifted his place so often, as he has shifted his ground on this Bill, that one can be pardoned for not seing him. He stated that this would be administratively impossible, and he drew for his illustration the carpenter who is engaged in the shipbuilding industry. He said, "How could you know whether there was 15 per cent. of unemployment among the ship carpenters at any time?" You might have carpenters in the house building trade entering themselves upon the register, and so giving you a position that the authorities at the Ministry of Labour would not be able to tell whether 15 per cent. or some other percentage were unemployed. If that is the only illustration that the Parliamentary Secretary can find, I think it is rather an insult to the Committee to put the point to us. The percentage of unemployed in particular occupations and particular industries is known in his Department at the present time, and he can find the information by taking a few steps from the seat he is occupying at this moment. He told us that it will be difficult to have it even in the matter of industries, and he quoted to us the old quarrel as to what is a craft and what is an industry. Some of us on this side of the House would have been willing to follow him upon the point as to what is an industry and what is a craft. We had that during the discussion
on the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill. To say that it is impossible for the Ministry to know whether 15 per cent. are unemployed in a particular occupation or a particular industry and that it cannot be found out by his Department is certainly begging the position.
We have been reminded, by the Parliamentary Secretary that it is possible to have a condition of things in which some portion of an industry may be prosperous and another portion of the industry may be in a state of depression. He left it at that. I would like to know to what occupation he was referring. I put a few questions to the Minister of Labour, who is going to reply. I hope he will not move the Closure, as he did in the earlier stages. Does he say that it is administratively possible to ascertain what is the percentage of unemployed in any section of the engineering trade? Does he say that his Department cannot tell us the number unemployed in any part of the shipbuilding trade? Does he say that it is impossible to tell us the percentage of unemployed in the chemical industry? Does he say that it is impossible to tell us the percentage of unemployed in the textile industry, either cotton which was referred to by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) or the woollen section of the industry? To say that they do not know at this time of day what is the percentage of unemployed in an industry, is hardly treating the House with that fairness that we ought to receive.
I am inclined to think that the reason of the Government in opposing the Amendment is because they know that the Bill as drafted, and this particular Clause of it, will drive off the unemployment pay roll or keep off the unemployment pay roll tens of thousands of people. They know quite well that there are very few industries, if any industry, in this country, where there is a certainty of securing the 7½ months work that would enable the necessary contributions to be on the card as a qualification for the unemployment pay. This Amendment is not entirely satisfactory to me, but certainly I do not consider it a wrecking Amendment. I can see the difficulties that would present themselves with regard to the 15 per cent. My hon. Friend who spoke from the Front Opposi-
tion Bench said that it ought to be something like 8 per cent., or approaching near it, to be fair in regard to the unemployed people. It is because the Bill as drafted will prevent many people from having a qualification for benefit that I am prepared to support the Amendment, even though the 15 per cent. is a long way different from the figure that I think right.
I can remember well the earlier days of unemployment insurance when the Board of Trade operated it, and how gladly they accepted our contributions when they knew full well that we were paying more than was required for the benefit we were to receive. I can remember how they imposed the contributions upon us at that time, and I can see now the spirit which animates the present Government who, whilst demanding our contributions and demanding 30 payments of contributions, know full well that it is not going to help the people in the direction of receiving unemployment pay, but will prevent a great many people from receiving that pay, because of the conditions under which they find themselves; conditions which are not due to any fault of their own. I hope the Amendment will be forced to a division, and I shall certainly support it. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green need not remind us of our difficulties in regard to a contributory scheme. If we wish to wreck a contributory scheme it will not be by such little items as this Amendment. We shall go for it by a straight attack and not by such a small Amendment as this. As the Amendment may help a few people I shall support it. Even if it helps a few people it ought to have the support of the Tory party which is opposed to real unemployment insurance.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): I shall not detain the Committee long in my comments in reply to some of the points which have been raised. I do not propose to traverse again the question of the unworkability of this Amendment as it stands. I think the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made that clear, and I think that fact was accepted. I will, however, in two or three sentences deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) in regard to this point. In the
first place, it is not a fact that we have got, nor as far as I can see is it within practical politics that we can get, a census for each separate occupation, much less a census week by week. The point to be settled would be the status of the individual in respect of his occupation and the difficulty of determining whether or not the individual belonged to a particular occupation at any moment. The difficulty arises not from the point of view of statistical accuracy, but from the effect of returning the man in a particular occupation, which ex hypothesi, is likely to have easier conditions of benefit attached to it.
The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) spoke as one belonging to the one party in the House which really loves insurance. He loves it so much that, having admitted the Amendment to be unworkable, he proposes that it should be incorporated in the scheme unless I give an assurance of some kind or other. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) was right when he told us that the Amendment was impossible; but he said that to reject it on that account was to go away from the main point. Really, I put it to the Committee that when it is proposed to incorporate an Amendment in the Bill it is absurd to say that the first and primary point is not to consider whether it is a workable Amendment. There are industries which, as everybody knows, are comparatively flourishing in one place and not in another, and it would be a bad principle if we tried to persuade individuals who are in a particular place where an industry is depressed to stay there, and to give them inducement to stay there rather than go away to some place where the industry is more flourishing or, if that cannot be found, to go into some other, occupation.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Kidd) dealt with a case in point in regard to the shale industry. What has happened in that industry proves the inadvisability of any suggestion of the kind to which I have referred. The shale industry was and is a most depressed industry, and if they had had this condition about the 15 per cent. unemployment in operation it really would not have helped them so much as with the assistance of the Employment Exchanges they have been able to help themselves.
In that industry, depressed as it is, there were 2,600 men out of work. It is a small industry. Within 11 months, nearly 60 per cent. of these men had found or had been helped to find employment in. other industries near at hand. I put it to the good sense of the Committee that that is an infinitely better way of dealing with the situation than of doing anything that would induce men to remain-where they are in much less favourable conditions.

Mr. HAYDAY: Would not the right hon. Gentleman do that in any case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I say, and I say it advisedly, that, of course, while I should do what I can to help in any case, the moment you relax one of the two main conditions you weaken any incentive to the men to find occupation in other places.
The next point was why should not I state at once what steps I propose to take should it be found —although, as I have said often, I consider it most unlikely—that the state of affairs is so bad when the 30 contributions condition comes into operation that some measures are necessary to meet the situation. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) pursued what I would call the well-known tactics of anyone in Opposition. He asked for details now of any step to meet any emergency. That is what he has been doing during the whole discussion on the Bill.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I asked a simple question. The right hon. Gentleman admits that he is going to throw out of benefit 56,000 more persons, and we are entitled to ask now what he is going to do with those persons? That is not a hypothetical question.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am dealing with the Amendment, with regard to the 15 per cent. of unemployment, and I say quite simply at once what I would do. If and when it became clearly necessary for something to be done, then I would suggest that Parliament, which has the power to pass a short Act to deal with the situation, should exercise that power once again; but it is absurd to ask that here and now I should indicate exactly what steps, I should take, because no one can say what will be the nature of the problem to be met. The state of the shale in-
dustry at this moment, where there is a great deal of unemployment, is an entirely different matter from the state, say, of the tinplate industry at any given moment. It makes every difference in the world whether you have an industry where it looks as though a great amount of unemployment is going to continue or whether you have an industry which has acute and acrobatic Tips and downs, which is the case so often with an industry like the tinplate industry. Therefore, I say quite advisedly that it is wrong altogether to try to deal with the situation and to hamper the administration by trying i beforehand to state the exact measures that may be taken to meet a situation in the future. On the contrary there is -no need for it, there is no need for this precipitancy. The hon. Member for Sunderland asked how I proposed to meet the figures he quoted to the Committee yesterday. The hon. Member used many figures, and I have not yet read the whole of his speech, but I must tell him that I am not impressed by his figures. He has used them in perfectly good faith, but his first estimate in regard to Sunderland is more than 100 per cent. out.

Mr.L.THOMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how he arrives at the conclusion that my figures are 100 per cent. out?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is more than 100 per cent., it is 150 per cent. In connection with the first estimate he gave —56 per cent.—he took an entirely untrue sample. He took a sample of the people who' were coming in on a particular day for extended benefit. He chose the worst lives and then took a percentage based on the worst possible sample of those lives. When he got down to a fairer sample he reduced that estimate from 50 per cent to 22 per cent. I must point out that 56 per cent. is not 100 per cent., hut 150 per cent. higher.

Mr. THOMPSON: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has raised this issue and I think we should have it made perfectly clear. I did not intend disclosing figures Taut I will disclose the figures to the 'Committee now, I explained to the House that as a member of a local committee I was able to take a sample on a specific day in November, and on that day 265 men applied for benefit. Out of
that 285 there were 160 who would have been turned down, or 56 per cent., on the 30 contributions basis. I asked for a return on the 20 contributions basis and no less than 20 per cent. of the applicants would have been turned down. I submitted these figures to the Ministry straight away and said that if they were correct it was an alarming state of things. I ask the Ministry to correct me. This was in November. The Ministry could not disprove these figures, but said that they were taken over an unfair test. I said, "Very well, give me the right test," and the test which the Ministry took was not over a number of applicants but over the total number of men who were receiving benefit in a particular Employment Exchange, numbering 3,100; men who were receiving standard and extended benefit, and on the test of the 30 contributions 22.5 failed. It means that 700 men in that exchange would have been turned down. That exchange represents half of the unemployed people in Sunderland, and it is reasonable to suppose that 1,400 men in Sunderland will be turned down on the 30 contributions rule. It is not fair for the Minister to say that my figures are wrong by 150 per cent. They are strictly right in the way they were taken.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have said that the 56 per cent. was based on what was not a true sample. If anybody gets a sample which is not correct they can produce almost any percentage they like.

Mr. HAYDAY: Yes, your own White Paper.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Now I take the hon. Member's further figure. He says that it is difficult for any private Member to get a sample which shall be a true sample. I quite agree that it is difficult for a private Member to do this. The figure he produced was 22.5 per cent. for those who would be affected by the 30 contributions rule in the last two years.

Mr. THOMPSON: As I say, they averaged 3,100; those who were then receiving standard and extended benefit, and, under the 30 contributions test 22.5 would fail.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That is on the 30 contributions in the last two years. I ask the Committee and the hon. Member to consider whether there
is any need for apprehension. I take the figures of unemployment in Sunderland for the past two years; those on the live register. In November, 1926, towards the end of the coal dispute there were 22,445. In December they had sunk to 19,524, and they sank steadily during the first part of this year up to April, when they were down to 14,508. During the last six months the fall has steadily continued and on 24th October this year they were 9,540. The figures in Sunderland have been falling steadily the whole time from the high peak last November, when they were gravely influenced by the coal stoppage. But obviously, it means that the hon. Member in coming to his conclusion of 22.5 per cent. was influenced by the figures based on a period which was itself abnormal. That is the reason why I have said, and say again, that while no prudent person would refrain from devising machinery which would be best calculated to meet the situation, yet, on the other hand the situation need not cause apprehension; there is no need to take precipitate action, and for that reason I cannot ask the Committee to accept the Amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON: May I say just one word more in order to clear up one point. My figures were deliberately based on the date 14th November in order to give a clear year between the settlement of the coal dispute and the time they were taken, and the latter arguments of the right hon. Gentleman are entirely in favour of that date. The fact that trade is booming in Sunderland should have made it easier for men to qualify for benefit during the last year.

Mr. R. HUDSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down may I ask him to reply to the question I put to him in my original speech? I asked him to define what he meant by the phrase, "If my expectations are not realised." The Parliamentary Secretary said that if a cataclysm occurs remedial legislation will be necessary. The whole of our point in moving this Amendment is based on the fact that we think the right hon. Gentleman's calculations in the White Paper are wrong and based on too high a sample. I ask him to say, in order to prove that his expectations are right, that he will take some practical steps, such as taking a quarterly sample on a
larger scale, more especially in the distress areas, to see whether these numbers of men would be turned out and whether remedial legislation will be necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman can answer these questions he will dispel great fears and apprehensions in our minds. Can he explain what he means by "if his expectations are not realised."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I certainly shall not bind myself to take samples of 1 per cent., 2 per cent., 3 per cent., or 4 per cent., but I am prepared to take samples from time to time, on the best statistical advice, which are calculated to give really fair and adequate results. I have, as many hon. Members know, taken the advice of those who are my advisers as to what is a sufficient sample to be adequate, and as to the conditions under which it would be a perfectly good sample. If the hon. Member wishes me to lay down a particular test with regard to any particular industry, that I certainly will not do. I cannot do it. I have always said during all the years I have been at the Ministry of Labour, and I still maintain it, that you have to look at all the circumstances of an industry before you can pronounce judgment upon it, and amongst the circumstances is the duration of the stoppages and the amount of general unemployment in the trade, but to make a particular test in any particular industry is a thing which no prudent man would do.

Mr. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman develop his point and apply it to the existing circumstances in the mining industry?

Mr. HAYDAY: I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman in taking his test and making his inquiries will include the figures for the two months and give us an analysis? There are 100,000 people who do not come into the calculations and it is time we had an analysis.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will inquire whether it is possible and right to do so and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. R. HUDSON: In view of the Minister's reply I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. EVAN DAVIES: I should not have intervened in the Debate but for the fact that the whole thing appears to me to be very unsatisfactory. The Minister of Labour has made a display of his sympathy with the working classes of the country throughout the whole course of the discussion. I come from an area which is constantly affected by unemployment. I am satisfied that the purpose of the Amendment is to meet a condition of things that I experience from time to time in the area that I represent. It looks as if we on this side of the House are the people who are trying to put the case of the working classes of the country, and those who are sitting on the Government Front Bench and those who support them represent some other community or country as against the working classes of this country. We are trying to put forward the fundamental fact that the present condition of unemployment arises largely because of the conduct of the particular people who have been in control of the affairs of the country.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If an hon. Member opposite was allowed to say a word for those who are in the shipbuilding industry, surely my hon. Friend, can say a word for the colliers of the country?

Mr. DAVIES: It is not my intention to do more than bring to the mind of the House the fundamental fact that there are large numbers of men unemployed and that hon. Members opposite do not appreciate or understand the fact. I represent an area where at this moment, in one particular valley, there is a population of 16,000, and only 100 men are employed in the collieries, because the other collieries have been closed down as a result of what are called economic conditions. Those people are not responsible for the economic conditions. The Amendment tries to get the Minister to agree to a different condition of things. The right hon. Gentleman does away with the right to benefit by his stipulation in the Bill as to 30 stamps on the card in the last two years._ I am here to ask the Minister what he intends to do with these particular people, who will have not a crumb of bread to eat. I am not
so much concrened as to technical points or the wording of any Amendment. I am here to state that it is a sad reflection on the House of Commons that in the present condition of industry, with an enormous amount of unemployment in the industrial valleys of Wales and all over the country, we have a Minister with sufficient effrontery and a Cabinet with sufficient impudence to bring into the House legislation which will mean the starvation of large numbers of people who cannot help themselves.
I know only this: that if the Minister will not agree to try to bring these people into the ambit of an Act of Parliament that will give them an opportunity to live in some way, he may depend upon it that he is creating in the country such a psychology that love of country will be a thing of the past—a psychology that will treat the Minister and all concerned in this House as being the enemy of the working classes of the country. I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, do they realise that there is unemployment on a very large scale in this country? Are they prepared to do something in order to bring into benefit those people who are genuinely unemployed? We had a discussion last night as to the meaning of "genuinely seeking work." The Minister then defended the words of the Bill. I have in my pocket a letter from a man who was in receipt of benefit. In order to get work somewhere, and being tired of the condition of things as he found them, he walked all the way from Ebbw Vale to Wakefield, seeking employment on the journey, but the Employment Exchange officials at Wakefield eventually told him he was not genuinely seeking work. That case is typical of what can be done with people who may be struck off the register because they have not the requisite 30 stamps on their cards. By such methods the Government will create, and I would help to create, a condition of things that will lead to deep resentment against the Government and will make men look upon the Government as those who want to force people's noses to the ground and make them work for nothing. The Government will have to put up with the consequences if they force the Bill through in its present form.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I wish to subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the last speaker. One could sometimes admire the debating ability of the Minister of Labour were it not for the fact that every success he achieves means the starvation of a certain number of people. It cannot be too often brought to the mind of the House that we are dealing here, not with the question how we shall run certain mechanical contrivances, but how we shall administer the domestic affairs of a large percentage of the community. One of the significant things about this Amendment is that it comes from three Conservative Members representing industrial constituencies. It indicates that already, before the Fifth Clause of the Bill is passed in Committee, even the Conservative industrial districts are in revolt. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) told the Committee that his constituents had placed before him certain facts which made it impossible for him to return to his constituency and attempt to justify the conduct of the Government in forcing this Bill through in its present form. I wish it were possible for all Members on the other side to consult their constituents regarding this Bill. I am sure that if they did, and that if it were possible to report Progress until they had had such an opportunity, when the House met again there would be a different attitude of mind towards the main proposals of the Bill.
It is a mere debating point to say that there are administrative difficulties in the way of acceptance of the Amendment. Such administrative difficulties are nothing to the administrative difficulties that will be experienced by tens of thousands of women in this country in trying to live under the provisions of this Measure. The right hon. Gentleman has at his disposal the ablest Parliamentary draftsmen in the world. If he desires to accept the spirit of this Amendment there is no difficulty at all in getting a form of words that will give expression to that desire. The right hon. Gentleman does not want to accept the spirit of the Amendment, and therefore he quibbles about the defects of draftsmanship in the Amendment. The question that is raised here is one with which the House has been familiar for several years. It is the condition of the necessitous areas. We know that while the right hon. Gentleman may talk about 9.3 per cent. of
unemployment and a probable 8 per cent. of unemployment, there are large areas in which there are at the moment 20, 25, 50 and 60 per cent. of the industrial population unemployed. We have just had a speech from an hon. Member representing a constituency where, he says, probably 90 per cent. of the workers are unwillingly unemployed. How can the Minister attempt to evade that terrible condition of things? It is impossible.
We have heard a lot about statistics, both to-day and yesterday. We were told that certain figures presented to the House were 150 per cent. wrong. If such a term is justifiable at all, we might say that this Bill is 150 per cent. wrong. How can you ever hope to bring these people into unemployment benefit? If you had only 26 per cent. of an industrial population unemployed and you distributed the available employment over the available number of workers, it would be possible under the Bill to prevent anyone in that area from ever being eligible for benefit. That has been pointed out over and over again. Unless a man has 30 stamps for 30 weeks' works in two years he is not eligible for benefit. So you can quite easily distribute the work that is available in a district like this and in a district four or five times more prosperous than this—distribute the work available over the men who are willing to do it and not one of those men will ever, if the Bill is in operation for 20 years, be eligible for the benefits contemplated in the Bill. I am sure that hon. Members opposite must know that. At any rate, it is hopeful that the people of Sunderland will know it, and that they, who have sent a Conservative Member to represent them in this House, have now intimated to that Member that it was not to support this Bill that he was sent to the House.
6.0 p.m.
I wonder what Conservative Member was sent from an industrial district to support the Bill. I submit that not a single Member on the Government side of the House could! get up and say that he has a mandate to support the Government in the proposals that are now being forced through the House. The Parliamentary Secretary, in another excellent debating speech, told us that if you gave effect to this Amendment and you said that people, say, in the mining industry,
were only to have a period in which the rate of unemployment exceeded 15 per cent. struck out of the calculations, people in that industry in certain areas would get advantages over other people in the same industry in other areas. But I submit that that applies to the Bill as it stands to-day. Unemployment in any industry is not uniform to-day. It may be 30 per cent. in one district and 10 per cent. in another. In a district where it is only 10 per cent., has not the unemployed man three times the chance of getting a job that he would have if residing in a district with 30 per cent. of unemployment? You cannot exclude these conditions from any Measure because you have not uniformity. To reject an Amendment because such an objection applies to it is pitiable debating, for the same objection applies to every Clause in the Bill into which it is proposed to insert the Amendment. I am surprised at the Minister's adamant attitude towards this human appeal that has been made to him on behalf of tens and probably hundreds of thousands of men and their dependants, whose bread and butter are at stake. He tells us that, if there is an industrial cataclysm, this Bill, which on its Second Reading we were told was a final Measure and was to settle for ever the question of unemployment insurance, will not be final. Before the Bill is through Committee, the right hon. Gentleman rises in his place and tells us that he contemplates another Measure to remedy the state of affairs that is possible but will not be met under this Measure.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I expressly said I did not contemplate it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) is now making a Second Reading speech. He must confine himself to the Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: With all due respect, I submit I am replying, argument by argument, to the discussion which has taken place this afternoon. I submit that the Minister more than once this afternoon indicated to the House that, if the reductions in unemployment on which the provisions of the Bill are based, were not
realised, then it would be open to him to introduce another Measure to deal with the situation which would then arise. He said so last night and he has said it more than once to-day. I say it shows that the Government have not given serious consideration to this problem when they submit a Bill which they tell us on the Second Reading is, in their judgment, the final settlement of a difficult problem and then, before the fifth Clause of that Bill goes through Committee, tell us, in defence of their Bill, that they can always fall back within the next 12 months on a new Measure to take its place.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: To return to the Amendment, I agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) who said that this is really not a wrecking Amendment, but surely it is an Amendment which goes directly against the spirit of the Clause. As the Minister said before he entered into a controversy on figures with hon. Members, the object of this Clause is to cause a certain amount of pressure to he brought to bear upon those who happen to be engaged in industries which are now dying out, or are not likely to afford any considerable amount of employment in the future. That such pressure is necessary, I think our experience of the Insurance Acts during the past few years has proved conclusively. The hardship to the manual worker who has to change his occupation in these days is immense, and, therefore, in the absence of some little pressure in that direction, it is very difficult to imagine that he will voluntarily change his occupation and go into some other industry where his chances of continued employment are better. For example, the bulk of the working population in this country live in houses which come under the Rent Restrictions Acts. It is well-known to those of us who live in working-class districts that it is immensely difficult for a man to change his place of residence, since, under the Acts which control working-class houses, anyone who is fortunate enough to be in a house and paying rent below the market value is naturally unwilling to move from that house.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I ask you, Mr. Chairman, do we get leave to wander about in this fashion in our speeches?

Mr. HOPKINSON: The result of this situation is, as I say, that hardship is produced when a man is forced to change his occupation at the present time. There is another point which I would like to bring to the notice of hon. Members opposite. In all the arguments which I have heard them use in reference to this Amendment, they seem to go upon the supposition that if 60,000 men are affected by the Clause, then those 60,000 men must of necessity go on the Poor Law. Surely, they are greatly in error there. The mere fact that 60,000 weekly payments of benefit have been saved to industry, and that that amount of money is, therefore, producing more employment for the men is a factor in easing the situation for them. That has always been the trouble with unemployment insurance. It is one of the unhappy things about it, that the mere existence of the Unemployment Insurance Acts and of the system of weekly payments—which payments have to be made by industry—to the unemployed men, means an increased amount of unemployment. The thing is obvious, and has always been taken into account to a certain extent in the actuarial calculations upon which benefits and contributions are based.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. James Hope): I do not see how the hon. Member is going to get to the point of this Amendment.

Mr. HOPKINSON: The argument on the other side, before you came in, Sir, was that this Amendment ought to be passed because, in its absence, a very large number of people would be thrown out of benefit who would otherwise not be thrown out of benefit. Hon. Members base their argument on the supposition, as I have suggested, that all these men would be unable to find employment if they were thrown off benefit. As a matter of fact, a very large percentage of them would find the unemployment situation distinctly eased by the fact that unemployment benefit was not being paid in their cases. Therefore, let us bear in mind that, whatever the calculated number of men who will be affected by this Clause in the way indicated, at any rate a considerable proportion of them are bound to find the unemployment situation distinctly eased. In conclusion, I hope hon. Members opposite will
consider the main point of the Clause, which is admittedly to bring pressure to bear upon a certain section of the population to change their occupations. An hon. Member who spoke a short time ago referred to the Welsh coal-mining areas. I know those areas, and it is true, as the hon. Member said, that in some of them there are thousands of men who can never hope to get employment in their own industry again. Are we simply to sit down and allow those men to goon drawing benefit at the expense of the other workers and the rest of the industry of the country for an indefinite period? Is it not really kinder, is it not less cruel in the long run to bring a reasonable amount of pressure upon them in order to help them to overcome the hardship involved in a change of employment and get them to work again?

Miss WILKINSON: It seems to me that the last speaker has invented a brand of economics which is all his own. He has not a following even in this House but it is interesting to know that when he, at last, comes down to deal with the question of these "pools" of labour for which no other employment can be found, the unemployed who are to be left out of the Bill, his only remedy is pressure, and still more pressure. If he would go into those mining valleys of which he speaks he would realise that there is now a pressure, weighing like lead on these men. It is not further pressure but some means of alleviating their distress that the Opposition is trying to secure in its support of this Amendment. Going back to the speech of the Minister, I would like the Committee to realise where the right hon. Gentleman has left us by his remarks in reply to the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson). The Minister admits that there will be need, or that there may be need, for a short Act in order to deal with the trouble which has been indicated by the Mover of the Amendment; but he asks us not to be precipitate about it, and to wait until this Measure is in operation. Then, the right hon. Gentleman says, he will "take samples," and consider what the position will be and frame his new Measure accordingly. That would sound a perfectly logical method of procedure if the figures on which he will take his samples were not in fact known to his Department beforehand. If he were dealing with an un-
known quantity, so that he would have to see this Measure in operation first and then devise his new Bill accordingly. I could understand his position. But every Employment Exchange in the country can, in fact, supply him now with the number of men and women who are likely to be turned off insurance benefit by the operation of this 30 contributions qualification. That is the whole point.
We have had to point out to the Minister constantly that he is refusing to produce the statistics which are available. He has preferred in every case to base the provisions of this Bill on guesses because he dare not face the statistics which his own Department could produce. Any Exchange in the country could give the right hon. Gentleman the figures which the Sunderland Exchange has provided for the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson). It is a simple arithmetical calculation 'o find out how many men and women signing for benefit, will be disqualified under this 30 stamps condition. But rather than take that course, the Minister begs us not to be precipitate. What does he think is to happen to all these men who are being turned off benefit while he is waiting to take samples and is telling us not to be precipitate? I wish one could make the right hon. Gentleman realise that he is dealing with human beings, and with homes. I wish he would realise that these people are going to be put into a terrible plight by the operation of this Measure which is based on such extraordinary shaky foundations both as regards its finance and its statistics.
It seems to me that both those who look at the matter primarily from the point of view of industrial employment, and those who look at it primarily from the point of view of the worker, must regard the future with grave misgivings if we are going to have this guess-work kind of legislation, for which there is no excuse because the figures, as I say, are available if the Minister would trouble to get them. We know that the figures are available from the way in which the Minister can throw out quite a definite figure when he chooses to do so, to help any particular argument. But when we ask, as I asked at Question Time some days ago for the figures in regard to Middlesbrough, for example, and the numbers who would be turned off benefit
by the operation of this qualification, then all we can get from the Minister is that it would be too costly and too difficult to procure the figures. I suggest that the cost to industry and the cost to the country is going to be made infinitely greater by the refusal of the Minister to get his statistics before he draws up his Bill.
May I give one sample from my own constituency. In Middlesbrough £3,000 a week was being paid in out-relief. When the last Insurance Act threw a number of men off benefit, the figures went up by £800 a week. That is a cost put on to industry; it means that this particular distressed area has so much of a further burden to bear, and I think the employers of the country have a right to demand from the Minister some indication, before he introduces a Bill like this, of what it is going to cost them and of how these distressed areas and terribly depressed industries, like coal, iron, steel, shipbuilding constructional engineering, are going to be affected by its operation. Somebody has to keep these men. We cannot leave them, as yet, to starve on the streets. It is merely a mechanical operation; if they go off this Fund which is borne on the shoulders of the whole country then they will be thrown on the localities, and we shall see our depressed industries still further depressed. The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, have both failed to meet this fundamental point which has been raised by Members on their own side of the House. Neither the Minister of Labour nor the Minister of Health will face the position. The Minister of Health refuses grants to distressed areas. The Minister of Labour says it is not his business how people are to live on these benefits or whether they are to be turned off or not; that they will have to go to the Minister of Health. The people who are suffering are the workers on the one side, and the big industrial employers on the other.
We are told by the Parliamentary Secretary that he cannot accept this Amendment because he cannot define an industry. Some of us remember the Debates on the Trade Unions Bill and how we were told, on the question as to whether it was possible to define an industry, "Of course, you can define an industry; it is perfectly reasonable to define an industry." The Attorney-General made a speech ridiculing one in
which I said you could not define an industry by saying he was prepared then and there to do it. It is possible to find that quotation in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I suggest that the Under-Secretary should apply to the Attorney-General for his definition of an industry. But while there are certain difficulties in defining an industry from such an angle as that which was used in the Trade Disputes Bill, where passions and loyalties were aroused, I suggest that it is a much simpler thing to define an industry under this Bill, where you are dealing with statistics. Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Department has in fact produced a dictionary of occupations? I cannot give the exact title, but I understand the Department has produced a dictionary defining the various trades and occupations, and there again I must ask the Minister why he does not use the information at his disposal. He will not use his statistics, and now he is proposing not to use the classification of trades and industries which his own Department has drawn up for him.
If we are faced continually with this stone wall attitude of the Minister, we shall have to ask him whether he cannot or will not give us some alternative proposal. It is surely not treating the Committee fairly for the Department to ask that they should be given carte blanche for this particular Bill and that then they shall decide about it afterwards. It is not treating a responsible institution like the British House of Commons fairly not to put it in possession of the relevant facts before it is asked to deal with a piece of legislation of this kind. Since we are all quoting Blanesburgh, I am going to ask the Minister if, before he contemptuously refuses the Amendment, he will look at page 57 of the Report, and there he will see that, as regards occasional work, the very difficulty raised by this Amendment was raised before the Blanesburgh Committee, and they report:
The fact that, according to our proposal, an insured contributor is qualified for benefit only after the payment of 30 contributions within the previous two years carries with it an obvious corollary. Where the conditions of an industry, or section of an industry, are such that persons following it are normally not engaged in insurable work long enough to enable them to fulfil that condition, it would be unfair to them to insist on any contributions. We recommend, therefore, that where such workers can show that in two successive,
years they have been unable for such reasons as are above stated to secure as much as a yearly average of 15 contributions, they should be entitled to claim exemption.
That was one way of dealing with one set of circumstances that the Blanesburgh Committee suggested, and in this Amendment we have another way of dealing with exactly the same set of difficulties. When we ask the Minister if he has any alternative, all that he says is that we shall have to wait and see, that they will have to come along in the future, when they have seen how this Bill has operated, and that then, if everybody will be quiet and patient, probably they will be able to go into the matter.
I suggest that the Minister has very little idea of the real alarm that is being created in the industrial areas by his refusal to deal with these difficulties. The moving of the Closure may do for this House, where he has a majority behind him that can enforce that kind of unfairness, but it will not go down in the country. It is not going down in the country, because a board of guardians in the Birmingham district has circularised this House and pointed out these difficulties, and every one of us who represents an industrial area is receiving S.O.S. communications from the boards of guardians in our respective constituencies. Apparently we are to go back and tell them the answer of the Minister, that if we will be good, if we will wait, if we will not be precipitate, when we have got into a muddle he will be so good, if he thinks of it, in the middle of his ether occupations, to take some samples—he will not define what samples, but samples here and samples there—and perhaps then he will consider whether he will bring forward a Bill to deal with the problem. It will not do. Before that has happened, this Government will have gone down to the oblivion which it deserves.

Mr. STEPHEN rose—

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 266; Noes, 136.

Division No. 398.]
AYES.
[3.49 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forrest, W.
Malone, Major P. B.


Albery, Irving James
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Margesson, Captain D.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Apsley, Lord
Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Astor, Viscountess
Gates, Percy
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Atkinson, C.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Balniel, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grace, John
Murchison, Sir Kenneth


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge).


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Grotrian, H. Brent
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Berry, Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Betterton, Henry B.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pennefather, Sir John


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Penny, Frederick George


Blades, Sir George Rowland
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)
peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hammersley, S. S.
pilditch, Sir Philip


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, William


Briggs, J. Harold
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hartington, Marquess of
Raine, Sir Walter


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remnant, Sir James


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward
Hilton, Cecil
Salmon, Major I.


Campbell, E. T.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Shepperson, E. W.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
skelton, A. N.


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine'C.)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Huntingfield, Lord
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hurst, Gerald B.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cope, Major William
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Couper, J. B.
Iveagh, Countess of
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lamb, J. Q.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell.


Dixey, A. C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Tinne, J. A.


Drewe, C.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Eden, Captain Anthony
Long, Major Eric
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Looker. Herbert William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Waddington, R.


Ellis, R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston s. M.)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lumley, L. R.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Everard, W. Lindsay
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Watts, Dr. T.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macintyre, Ian
Wells, S. R.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
McLean, Major A
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fermoy, Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Wood, E. (Chestr, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry


Womersley, W. J.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Barnston.


Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hardie, George D.
Sexton, James


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, Walter
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Barnes, A.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stamford, T. W.


Bromfield, William
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sullivan, J.


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Charleton, H. C
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clowes, S
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, George
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton), E.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lawrence, Susan
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Connolly, M,
Lee, F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cove, W. G.
Lindley, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Dannison, R,
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
March, S.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Montague, Frederick
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Fenby, T. D.
Morris, R. H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Gardner, J. P.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gillett, George M.
Owen, Major G.
Whiteley, W.


Gosling, Harry
Palin, John Henry
Wiggins, William Martin


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin.,Cent.)
Parkinson, John Allan (Wigan)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R.,Elland)



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Charles Edwards.

Division No. 399.]
AYES.
[6.22 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macintyre, lan


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
McLean, Major A.


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Apsley, Lord
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fermoy, Lord
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Astor, Viscountess
Fielden, E. B.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Atholl, Duchess of
Finburgh, S.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Atkinson, C.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Malone, Major P. B.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Forrest, W.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Balniel, Lord
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Merriman, F. B.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fraser, Captain lan
Meyer, Sir Frank


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell. Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Ganzoni, Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Gates, Percy
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R. (Ayr)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cilve


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Bennett, A. J.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nelson, Sir Frank


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Grace, John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Berry, Sir George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Bethel, A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Betterton, Henry B.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grotrian, H. Brent
Penny, Frederick George


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Briggs, J. Harold
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perring, Sir William George


Brittain, Sir Harry
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hanbury, C.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Preston, William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Radford, E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hartington, Marquess of
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Butt, Sir Alfred
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Reid. D. D. (County Down)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Haslam, Henry C.
Remer, J. R.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Remnant, Sir James


Campbell, E. T.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford,Henley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cayzer, Maj.Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Hilton, Cecil
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. sir D. (St. Marylebont)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Rye, F. G.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hope. Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Salmon, Major I.


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N).
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whitch'n)
Sandon, Lord


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavo D.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Hurst, Gerald B.
Shepperson, E. W.


Colman, N. C. D.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cooper, A. Duff
Iveagh, Countess of
Skelton, A. N.


Cope, Major William
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)


Couper, J. B.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smithers, Waldron


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C C. (Antrim)
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Kinloch-Cooke. Sir Clement
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd.Hemel Hempst'd)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovil)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Long, Major Eric
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Looker, Herbert William
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Templeton, W. P.


Drews, c.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lumley, L. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Ellis, R. G.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


England, Colonel A.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Waddington, R.




Wallace, Captain D. E.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Warrender, Sir Victor
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Watts, Dr. T.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl



Wayland, Sir William A.
Withers, John James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wells, S. R.
Wolmer, Viscount
Captain Bowyer and Captain Mar-


Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Womersley, W. J.
gesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File. West)
Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)
Harris, Percy A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewie


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Sitch, Charles H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hayes, John Henry
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Baker, Walter
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Batey, Joseph
Hirst, G. H.
Snell, Harry


Bondfield, Margaret
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stamford, T. W.


Broad, F. A.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stephen, Campbell


Bromfield, William
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Bromley, J.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Strauss, E. A.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sullivan, Joseph


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Cape, Thomas
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro. W.)


Clowes, S.
Lansbury, George
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawrence, Susan
Thurtle, Ernest


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Tinker, John Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Connolly, M.
Lunn, William
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Cove, W. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Varley, Frank B.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Mackinder, W.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacLaren, Andrew
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Day, Colonel Harry
March, S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dennison, R.
Montague, Frederick
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Duncan, C.
Morris, R. H.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Edge, Sir William
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wellock, Wilfred


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Windsor, Walter


Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sexton, James
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A. Barnes.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 141; Noes, 266.

Division No 400.]
AYES.
[6.32 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Cluse, W. S.
Gibbins, Joseph


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gillett, George M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gosling, Harry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Compton, Joseph
Graham, D. M. (Lanark. Hamilton)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Connolly, M.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Baker, Walter
Cove, W. G.
Greenall, T.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bondfield, Margaret
Day, Colonel Harry
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Dennison, R.
Groves, T.


Broad, F. A.
Duncan, C.
Grundy, T. W.


Bromfield, William
Edge, Sir William
Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)


Bromley, J.
England, Colonel A.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvill


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Fenby, T. D.
Hardie, George D


Cape, Thomas
Forrest, W.
Harris, Percy A.


Charleton, H. C.
Gardner, J. P.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Clowes, S.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Hayday, Arthur


Hayes, John Henry
Paling, W.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hirst, G. H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tinker. John Joseph


Hore-Bellsha, Leslie
Potts, John S.
Townend, A. E.


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.
Varley, Frank B.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lane, Strettord)
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks.W.R., Elland)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watts-Morgan Lt. Col. D. (Rhondda)


Kennedy, T.
Scrymgeour, E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Kirkwood, D.
Scurr, John
Wellock, Wilfred


Lansbury, George
Sexton, James
Welsh, J. C.


Lawrence, Susan
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, J.


Lee, F.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lindley, F. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Whiteley, W.


Lowth, T.
Sitch, Charles H.
Wiggins, William Martin


Lunn, William
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Mackinder, W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


MacLaren, Andrew
Snell, Harry
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


March, S.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Williams, T. (York, Don Vailey)


Montague, Frederick
Stamford, T. W.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Morris, R. H.
Stephen, Campbell
Windsor, Walter


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wright, W.


Murnin, H.
Strauss, E. A.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Naylor, T. E
Sullivan, Joseph



Oliver, George Harold
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Palin, John Henry
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. A Barnes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chapman, Sir S.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Albery, Irving James
Christie, J. A.
Gower, Sir Robert


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Grace, John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Apsley, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Clayton, G. C.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Astor, Viscountess
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Atholl, Duchess of
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Grotrian, H. Brent


Atkinson, C.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colman, N. C. D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Hall, Lieut.-Col. sir F. (Dulwich)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cope. Major William
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Couper, J. B.
Hanbury, C.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Banston, Major Sir Harry
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Harland, A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hartington, Marquess of


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bennett, A. J.
Curzon, Capt. Viscount
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Dalkeith, Earl of
Haslam, Henry C.


Berry, Sir George.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Bethel, A.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Betterton, Henry B.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Drewe, C.
Hilton, Cecil


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Holt, Capt. H. P.


Briggs, J. Harold
Ellis, R. G.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brown, Maj, D. C. (N'th'I'd.,Hexham)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney.N.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fermoy, Lord
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Burman, J. B.
Fielden, E. B.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Finburgh, S.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Foster, Sir Harry s!
Iveagh, Countess of


Calne, Gordon Hall
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Campbell, E. T.
Fraser, Captain lan
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Gayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gates, Percy
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Knox, Sir Alfred




Lamb, J. Q.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Penny, Frederick George
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Locker-Lampion, G. (Wood Green)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Perring, Sir William George
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Long, Major Eric
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Looker, Herbert William
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vera
Power, Sir John Cecil
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Preston, William
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Lumley, L. R.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Templeton, W. P.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Radford, E. A.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Raine, Sir Walter
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tinne, J. A.


Macdonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Maclntyre, lan
Remer, J. R.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McLean, Major A.
Remnant, Sir James
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Waddington, R.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wallace, Captain D. E.


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Ward Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Malone, Major P. B.
Rye, F. G.
Watts, Dr. T.


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Salmon, Major I.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, S. R.


Merriman, F. B.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Meyer, Sir Frank
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wilson, Sir Charles H.(Leeds, Centrl.)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandon, Lord
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Withers, John James


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Shepperson, E. W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Nelson, Sir Frank
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smithers, Waldron



Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Captain Margesson and Captain


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Bowyer.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) the following shall be substituted for the fifth statutory condition for the receipt of benefit by insured contributors—
(v) that, if he has not reached the age of eighteen, he has, in pursuance of regulations which shall be made under this Act by the Minister, after consultation with the Board of Education, attended a course of instruction approved for the purposes of this provision under the regulations so made, and that, if he is eighteen years of age or over and has been required by an insurance officer, in pursuance of regulations made under this Act by the Minister after consultation with the Board of Education, to attend at any course of instruction approved for the purposes of this provision under the regulations so made, he proves that he duly attended in accordance with the requirement.
The purpose of my Amendment is to make training a condition of the receipt of benefit so far as persons under 18 are concerned and to require the Minister to make Regulations for those over 18. The question of juvenile unemployment is no new one. We were led to believe by the Parliamentary Secretary in the Debate on the Second Reading that this matter was still in an experimental stage.
Fifteen years ago, I was myself engaged in an experiment of precisely this kind, and since then the Government, immediately after the War and more recently, have taken up the provision of centres for unemployed juveniles. The position to-day is that the State has no knowledge whatever of unemployment among young persons under 16. It is a grave scandal that these juveniles are, to all intents and purposes, lost to the State. They may be wandering the streets and no one has any authority or supervision over them, but as regards young insured persons between 16 and 18, there is, under the insurance scheme, machinery provided which brings the State into contact with them. But to-day, except for one or two small juvenile centres up and down the country, nothing whatever is done to deal with this problem. The psychological effect of unemployment on an adult is serious. The psychological effect of unemployment upon a juvenile is disastrous. Consider what it means, say, in the coalfields to-day for boys to leave school and to find themselves month after month losing the discipline that they got in school, gradually throwing off the influence of school, and not
getting into employment which will give them new discipline. If you consider what that means, it will be quite clear that these juveniles are in peril of very serious demoralisation. Idleness in all classes is a curse. Idleness among young people who always leave school with high hopes, who are looking forward to wage-earning employment, really means the breakdown of every moral and intellectual support that they have got.
It is remarkable that we have not had more serious results flowing from this neglect of the unemployed adolescent. Everyone who has considered this problem knows that something ought to be done, that the unemployed juvenile ought not to be allowed to loaf about the streets and to stand at street corners, but that there ought to be some supervision over him socially. The Parliamentary Secretary, in dealing briefly with this question on Second Reading, told us that the Malcolm Committee had recently recommended the establishment of a permanent scheme of juvenile employment centres, and we are aware that the Blanesburgh Committee made the establishment of such centres a fundamental part of their Report. I do not propose to read again, though it would be well worth while to do so, the paragraphs in the Blanesburgh Report dealing with this subject. I read them on Second Reading, and so did the hon. Lady the Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor), and the words bear only one interpretation. That Report as we know it to-day would never have been made public if training for unemployed juveniles was not to be an integral part of any unemployment insurance scheme. I think that is clear from the Report itself, though when we read the Bill there is not a word about the training of unemployed juveniles. On Second Reading, the Parliamentary Secretary used words which must have misled a number of hon. Members. He said that a National Advisory Council for Juvenile Unemployment was going to be set up some time or another. In fact, he said, they had even got so far as deciding on the terms of reference, and in God's good time the Council would be in existence. Then he went on to say that for another year, that is, in the interval, the Government were arranging to carry on the system of unemployment centres, and added:
and so I think I may fairly claim that, so far as that recommendation of the Blanesburgh Report is concerned, we have accepted it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November, 1927, Col. 513, Vol. 210.]
That is entirely erroneous. The recommendation could not be accepted without legislation. The proposal in the Blanesburgh Report was that the receipt of benefit by juveniles unable to find work should be made conditional upon their attending an employment centre. There is no real power vested in the Minister of Labour, which he will use to ensure that all these children will attend such centres, and the straightforward thing to do is, as this Amendment proposes, to establish a new) statutory condition saying that the receipt of benefit by unemployed young persons under 18 is conditional upon their attendance at a juvenile employment centre.
Why have the Government burked this proposal? We were told, first, that the Bill was a Measure to carry out the Blanesburgh Report. We find, in fact, that it is a Bill to carry out those bits of the Report which commend themselves to the economy instincts of the Government, while ignoring what I would regard as the most important features of the Report, of which training is one. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested setting up this Council to deal with juvenile unemployment. When it is set up it will consider how employment centres should be started, it will give its collective mind to the details of courses of instruction; but surely that is not the business of such a Council. Is the whole experience of post-War years, covering many thousands of juveniles, to be ignored? Are we to be told that we cannot bring every juvenile into an employment centre within the next six months? If the right hon. Gentleman cared to do it, he could ensure that they were all there before Christmas. It is merely unwillingness on his part. But suppose that the time is not ripe, and that these wonderful schemes which are to be evolved by this Advisory Committee take time. We must remember that this is to be a permanent Bill. It is the Bill which is to put insurance on a sound footing for all time.

Mr. DUNCAN: The Rock of Ages!

Mr. GREENWOOD: If'the right hon. Gentleman can put off for two years the full operation of his Bill, he can delay
for a year the full operation of this new statutory requirement. If he really meant business about the training of unemployed juveniles, ho could put such a provision into the Bill and defer it until the date when he was prepared to bring the scheme into operation; but the fact that he has not done so leads me to believe that he has no intention of carrying out this recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee. I think his sole desire is to get out of this awkward corner with the minimum of trouble to himself. He has not succeeded so far, though that seems to be his main motive. The longer he proceeds with his Bill, the deeper he gets into trouble.
This is a proposal which, I am certain, commends itself to everybody on all sides of the House. Every body of men and women who have considered the question of unemployed juveniles is convinced of the tremendous need for some provision being made for them. What objection can there be against accepting this new statutory condition? If the right hon. Gentleman can convince me that it is beyond all human power to give effect to such a provision for three months or for six months, I will gladly accept an Amendment to say that it shall not come into operation until a reasonable time has elapsed. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept that offer, it means he is refusing to accept this moral responsibility for the terrific demoralisation which is going on in our big centres of population. The position of the adult worker who is unemployed is serious enough, but, bad though that be, the injury to the individual and the community through allowing these young people to go to pieces without any help being extended to them is a national crime of the worst possible kind. I do not pretend that you can bring these children into these centres and treat them like small children in school. My own experience shows me that that is impossible, but I say they ought to be brought under some form of decent supervision, in a decent atmosphere, which will keep their hearts up, which will keep their bodily strength up and which will keep them active, instead of allowing them slowly to deteriorate.
The problem goes further than that Such training might be of enormous assistance in dealing with the stagnant pools of labour which the right hon.
Gentleman persists in ignoring. What are we going to do with these unemployed boys in the coalfields? Are we going to allow them to rot in idleness year after year? I have seen in the coal fields boys who left school four years ago and have never yet been in a pit. That is a serious state of affairs. It is throwing away our future citizens. If those boys are not rescued now, it will not be possible to rescue them at all. There is no opportunity for them in the coal mines. Nobody believes that all unemployed young persons in the coal areas to-day can be absorbed into the pits. What is to be done with them? It is a difficult thing to take men of mature years and twist them out of the channels in which they have lived their lives and put them into other industries; it is perfectly possible to train young people who have never been in any industry at all—to train them and give them some skill in the use of their hands and their minds for the purpose of obtaining a living.
I hope the Committee will unite with us on this subject, and that the right hon. Gentleman will be pressed to give a definite decision in favour of compulsory training and not allowed to evade his responsibilities. He has succeeded in evading his responsibility for 56,000 people, and I hope we shall not allow him to evade his responsibilities for this large number of unemployed juveniles, a considerable proportion of whom may go to make the unemployables of the future. We are not asking for anything expensive. I am convinced that the whole cost could be borne by the Insurance Fund. If that be so, and if in this way we could render more employable young people who, in the course of time, must otherwise become unemployable, then this is an economic proposal which will be of value to the country. No argument about the scheme not being ready or about the cost ought to allow the Committee to stand in the way of coming to a definite conclusion that in this period of unemployment no young person shall be allowed to go to seed so long as the community can prevent it. That is the purpose of the Amendment.

Sir A. STEELMAITLAND: I have read this Amendment very carefully, It is based on a Clause of the original Act of 1920, but it differentiates between juveniles under 18 and those above 18. The fault of the Amendment, as I think
the hon. Member will realise, is that it is at once too wide and too narrow.

Mr. DUNCAN: Hear, hear! Both ways.

7.0 p.m.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Both ways. It is too wide from the point of view that it makes it obligatory, as a condition of getting benefit, that any unemployed juvenile in an insured trade should attend a centre. Of course, with the best will in the world to set up centres, there are some circumstances in which it is impossible to set up centres which are within the reach of some of the unemployed juveniles. That is quite clear, and it is recognised in the Blanesburgh Report. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment would realise at once that, in so far as there must, in any circumstances, be cases in which there are unemployed juveniles who cannot get to centres, that, at any rate, should not act as a disqualification for benefit. That is why the Amendment is too wide. Where it is too narrow is that, as it stands, the Amendment only deals with juveniles who are entitled to benefit. There may be, under this Bill of under the existing Act, numbers of boys and girls who are going into insured trades and who will not yet be entitled to benefit, but my own opinion is that juvenile unemployment centres should be open to them just as much as to those who happen to be entitled to benefit. I hope the hon. Member will agree that the Amendment as it stands is not adequate for both these reasons.
I come now to the main question. As regards this matter of unemployment centres for juveniles, it is, in my case, preaching entirely to the converted, if indeed conversion was ever necessary. I have been to some of these centres. I have not had much time this autumn, but I have been to one or two. Throughout my life, and more often in early life than recently, I have worked at centres which could be said to be analogous to juvenile unemployment centres—in the days when such centres were not widely known. I say quite definitely that I did accept at the time the full policy of the Blanesburgh Committee and the Malcolm and Salvesen Committees. The only doubt in my mind was as to the source of the money. Many people might well
doubt as to whether it should come from the Unemployment Fund and, in that case, whether it could come from that fund. That matter may well be open to question. I myself hold quite definitely— and indeed I am convinced upon it—that when it comes to other kinds of expenditure, such as unemployment schemes of work for adults, subsidising wages and uses of that kind, the Unemployment Fund never ought in any circumstances to be used for such purposes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad I carry the Committee with me as to that. I do hold very strongly that it ought to be used for juvenile unemployment centres, for I think that is a preventive measure as regards the future.
I do not want to set it too high, but I am convinced that it is a preventive measure for the future in keeping boys and girls good members of the industrial community. At the same time, I do realise that unemployment is less in degree among them than amongst adults, and for reasons which, to my mind, con stitute an entire distinction from the other uses, I think the Unemployment Fund can properly be used for juvenile unemployment centres. Up to now these have been financed by means of Exchequer grants each year. I freely admit it was my own mistake, but I thought we had power to take the money out of the Unemployment Fund. I frankly say that I made a mistake. My own impression was that we could use it, though it had not been done. I made a mistake, and I find that legislation is necessary in order to allow the Fund to be utilised for these juvenile unemployment centres. For that reason I intend, if the House will pass it, to propose a new Clause. The exact terms of the Clause will have to be considered carefully, and I cannot therefore promise to put it down before the Report stage. It will provide that the Minister may, with the consent of the Treasury, make grants from the Fund towards the expenses of juvenile unemployment centres. The only doubt there had been, in my mind, was whether it could be so used. I thought it could and I made a mistake. I say, therefore, quite definitely, that I propose to move that Clause, probably on the Report stage of the Bill.
Now I come to what I call the provisional basis—approval after full con-
sideration by the National Advisory Council. The hon. Member who moved this Amendment has not really done justice to what the Parliamentary Secretary said. Up to now all these centres have really been on an experimental basis. If the hon. Member himself or the hon. Member for Wallsend (Miss Bondfield) would go to one or other, he or she would find that though they have got a generic likeness, they do differ quite a good deal. I have been this Autumn to look at the one at Cardiff, that at Leeds and a number of others—and there are some in Birmingham. All have been on an experimental basis, and I think it must be recognised that if they are to be placed on a permanent basis, what is wanted is to try to find out the best lines on which they can be run. That is why I say we are putting the question up for the full consideration of the National Council. It is no good thinking that you are going to give a training of the ordinary kind such as juveniles get in an evening school, much less a secondary school or a technical school. What you do is to catch these boys and girls just at the time when they are out of a job. Inasmuch as unemployment is at its lowest among the juveniles for the most part —there are differences in some cases— but on the whole the period out of employment, as compared with others, is smaller—you get them very often only for a few days or a week or two, and, consequently, what you really want is to keep them fit, interested and disciplined in mind and body. That is not training in the educational sense so much as keeping up their nimbleness both of hand and mind and keeping them in disciplined health. That is really the object, and just for that reason, as the Centres are on an experimental basis, we think that the whole question ought to be gone into so as to see how the object can best be obtained. That is what is meant by putting the question to the National Council.
What I should like say further is this. I have already said that the hon. Member who moved the amendment is preaching to the converted in this matter, and I hope nobody will think that just because it is going to the National Council no start is being made meanwhile. I do not want to put it too high, or else
some mining Member for South Wales may come back upon me afterwards, but I should say that certainly before Christmas there will not be many of the mining centres in South Wales where unemployment amongst boys and girls is acute which will not have a centre within easy reach to which these boys and girls can go. So that on the provisional basis we are taking action already. That is the present situation.
A very different situation arises, of course, in regard to girls. If we can get boys to these centres, it means that we keep them fit and interested, keep their nimbleness of hand and brain and get them placed, as one hopes may be done, where the unemployment situation is easier—in other centres where work is brisker. Providing we can be sure of the kind of home to which they will go, and that they will not be taken advantage of when they are far away from their own homes, it will not be so difficult to take the boys and put them into business in districts where business is more brisk than in such districts as South Wales or, it may be, Durham.
With regard to girls, it is infinitely more difficult for a Government Department to take action, and I will give the Committee the reason. I am sure they will understand me. If we take a boy and we do our best to see that he is in a position where he can get a decent start, that is a thing which a Government Department may legitimately try to do, but if you were to take a girl from an unemployment centre like that and get her into some place, either in London, Birmingham, Manchester or other towns, the risks are very much greater, as the Committee will realise. What is more, supposing anything went wrong, though there were only one case out of a large number, every Member of the Committee will realise the sort of difficulty which would arise, and how what I may call discredit would be cast on the Governmental machinery because in this one case out of a large number anything wrong happened, or even that she had so disliked her new life as to say it was not tolerable. I am not saying that from the point of view of not wanting to take responsibility, but I am saying it from a point of view of starting a system which will really work well. I do think
that with regard to girls voluntary efforts can do better than Governmental efforts. For boys, I think it is adequate, but for girls you have to get something more. If the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) or any other Member would like to help in an extremely useful piece of work, it would be to see whether some organisation could not be created along those lines to try to deal with the problem of the girls. I have just given a sketch of the policy which I have in mind.
As regards training for those who are older, I frankly say I do not put that in the same category as training for juveniles, and I do not think anyone in this Committee does. As far as that is concerned, we have, as a matter of fact, started, during my time, training institutions at Brandon and Claydon, for overseas, Birmingham and Wallsend. We are this year increasing the one at Brandon and the one at Claydon, and we have been authorised by the Treasury to have another institution of the kind for men. We are also continuing our grants on the same scale for women. I pass over that fairly rapidly, because I do not want to exaggerate its importance. With regard to juvenile training centres, I have had a great deal to do with them in the past. What we do at the training centres, however, is only a very small part of the problem, and there is a lot of other work in this connection which must be done. Part of this work may become Governmental. As far as this side of the work is concerned, I do not know that I can agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood), but I have stated quite frankly the policy I am taking up. I do not think it is advisable to lay down cast-iron rules for attendance at juvenile unemployment centres, but where I think that rules can be properly set up and observed, I shall certainly adopt them.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not say that the cost of these juvenile centres should be paid for out of the Unemployment Fund, but if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so impervious to argument, and the Minister of Labour cannot get the money for this purpose, then I should
use the Unemployment Fund. Of course, I should prefer to see the cost borne by Treasury funds.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The proposals I have in mind are that it should be borne in part by the Treasury, and in part by the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. HARRIS: We have had a sympathetic reply from the Minister of Labour, and that is some advance. We do not want the Minister to ride away by pushing the cost of training centres on to the Unemployment Fund and being satisfied with that.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The steps that I have taken in South Wales show that I have not been satisfied with that alone.

Mr. HARRIS: I do not think the Minister of Labour can justify this system of juvenile training at the expense of the Insurance Fund. Those people in receipt of training would have the distinct advantage over other young people who were drawing benefit, but were not getting the training. The Blanesburgh Committee reported to the effect that rather than that this work should not be done, and rather than it should be neglected, they preferred that the cost should come on the Unemployment Fund. We are all agreed as to the great desirability of this work being done. I have always taken up the line that it should be done independently of the insurance scheme. The Insurance Fund exists to provide people with a living when they are out of work in return for their contributions. I have always considered that this training of the young people should be carried out under the Board of Education, and should be the mutual responsibility of the whole community. All we are suggesting by this Amendment is that the Minister of Labour, with his immense knowledge of the subject, should use his influence and his power in order to see that these young people should take advantage of their idleness by becoming producers and efficient workers.
The serious part of the position is that while we are producing thousands of unskilled persons by the fact that young people of 14 are drawn into industry, they are placed on the scrapheap at 16. In Germany they are tackling this system under a large and comprehensive system. I tried to get the Govern-
ment to make inquiries as to what was being done abroad in this connection and I failed. I received very unsympathetic replies. On one occasion it was suggested that I should go abroad myself. I may say that I spent my summer holidays abroad, going through Germany in order to see what they were actually doing in regard to their industries. In Germany they have large armies of young people out of work, and they are faced with the same problem of changing industries and different demands. Many mills in Germany have closed down through hostile competition, just as has been the case in this country. In Germany those responsible do not sit down and simply talk platitudes, but they have been tackling this question on scientific lines, and throughout the German Empire they have started evening continuation schools for young people between 14 and 18 years of age.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we cannot debate that subject under this Clause.

Mr. HARRIS: I had no intention of pursuing the subject in detail. All I was pointing out was that they had this machinery at work, and upon that machinery they had built up efficient methods of dealing with these young people who were out of work in Germany. Under the machinery which has been brought into existence in Germany, they are able to run evening continuation schools, not merely for young people between 14 and 18 years of age, but between 18 and 21 years of age. In Leipzig, which is the centre of a large textile trade, they have the same problems to face. Many of their markets have been closed and they find difficulty in keeping their machinery occupied. Instead of doing nothing, in Leipsic, they encourage these young people who are employed in the weaving and spinning mills to learn another trade such as bookbinding when they are out of work. I saw these young people being trained in another occupation so that when they are out of work, instead of going into the unskilled trade labour market, they are able to go into a fine business. These young girls were trained, out of the education funds, in the business of bookbinding, and they have become skilled bookbinders. The proper way of tackling this question is
to work with the Board of Education. The two Departments ought to work together. I think it would be a most unfortunate thing were we to continue the patchwork system which we are pursuing at the present time.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Does the hon. Member not realise that the local authorities have already been working on this subject?

Mr. HARRIS: I know that the facilities are quite inadequate to meet the immense size of the problem in London, and I am told that it is the same in the provinces. It is no use setting up a centre here and there. The system must be built upon a much larger scale. For my part, I would like to see these young people taken out of the unskilled labour market altogether, and it would be better if we had power to prevent people going into blind alley occupations. We are experiencing less and less demand for unskilled labour, and if the Minister of Labour really desires to make his new machinery work efficiently, he must not be content with the tiny experiments made by him last year, but he must make up his mind that all our young people out of work between 16 and 21 should be provided with facilities for learning a trade, in order to make them educationally fit. We should not be content simply with a knowledge of physical exercises and a little drill. Let these national juvenile centres be made real educational centres, properly fitted up with the necessary plant and machinery, and we should not be content with any make-shift system.
Some of our industries require highly-skilled and technically-trained craftsmen. My view is that the girls have just as much right to be trained in craft industries as the boys. I do not know what the Minister of Labour means by sending girls away to different parts of the country to get this kind of training. There is absolutely no reason for that. In each centre there should be proper training facilities provided for the girls. They are already doing this in Germany where they have created centres for girls, and where it is recognised that girl labour requires just as much training as boy labour. Now that we have equality of the sexes the girls have a right to demand that there should be no differentiation,
and I think it would be a pity if we accepted the principle that the cost of the training should be placed on the Insurance Fund. Therefore, it is essential, if you are going to recognise the responsibilities of the State to these young people, that you should accept the principle that every young person up to the age of 21 should have the right to demand training at these centres.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Member tell us from where the funds are to come to pay the cost of the extensive scheme which he has just elaborated?

Mr. HARRIS: I should say from the same source from which the Germans find it, namely, the national fund. If Germany, a depleted and nearly bankrupt country, can do it, surely we should be able to do it.

Mr. HANNON: I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware of it, but we in this country per capita are spending immensely more on education than Germany is spending.

Viscountess ASTOR: I want to congratulate the Minister on having been so open and frank with the Committee. It certainly was a great disappointment to some of us when we read the Bill and saw that no provision at all was made in it for these training centres. We know that the Minister believes in these juvenile training centres, and has always believed in them, and we know that some people in all quarters of the House have always fought for them. I get, however, a little uneasy when I find that it depends on the Treasury. The Minister knows quite well that, before he was in the Government, he and I fought for the extension of juvenile unemployment centres, and we got them, but there came a time when the Treasury, with a great lack of vision, cut them down. I hope that this time the Minister will have many more of his own side behind him than he and I had in those days. I forget which Treasury it was that we were fighting, but the Minister will remember quite well, and we had a very tiresome task. We did, however, get these juvenile unemployment centres, and also women's training centres. It seems to me extraordinary that anyone interested in their country can show such a lack of imagination as to ask where the money is coming
from. I am no Socialist, but I would ask, who is going to make the money? I remember Lord Milner saying, when we were talking about these centres, that, if he had the direction of the Government, he would borrow the money rather than let young people go to rack and ruin as they did after the War, and as many of them are doing now. We cannot afford to do that, as I know the Minister will realise.
I recollect a Socialist Member coming up to me in 1922 and saying that, if he were in the Government, he would not go in for juvenile unemployment centres, but would let these young people roam the streets and themselves become Socialists; but how a Conservative Government can let so many young people go to rack and ruin passes my understanding. I do not say that they all become Socialists; some of them—really difficult cases—do not stop at Socialism, they go beyond it. At one of the juvenile centres in Plymouth a boy came in waving the red flag, but he went out reading Shakespeare. We are, however, very advanced in Plymouth, but that is because we have fought for these things. What are Members representing divisions in other parts of the country doing? I am not speaking from a local point of view, but from the point of view of the country as a whole, and when I hear an hon. Member ask where the money is coming from, I would point out that, if you have a large body of unemployable people, it will not be a question of money—it will be far more expensive to keep those unemployable people than to train the juveniles. I feel discouraged when I hear Members asking where the money for this is coming from, and I hope the Minister will realise, when he is fighting the Treasury this time, that he has a large and ardent band of his own followers behind him. Some people learn some things sometimes, but some never learn anything. I do not want to be personal—they are in all quarters of the House. With regard to the women, we need not be so worried. These girls are not the helpless commodity that they were, and mothers are not so frightened of taking risks in regard to them, if they have got a job. From the moral point of view it is far more difficult to keep a girl without anything to do than it is to send her to employment at a distance, and I would say to the
Minister, if that be the only thing that is worrying him, do not let him worry. There are plenty of institutions and societies, and, if he desires it, we will guarantee to get these girls started. If he cannot have these training centres in all of the small towns, we will guarantee that, when the girls go to them, we will get the different societies to look after them. Therefore, I hope he will not let that stand in the way of giving the girls a chance.
I would like to remind the Minister that to-day a question was asked as to the number of young people in casual wards, and on one night this month, in the Metropolitan casual wards, there were no fewer than 44 young people between the ages of 16 and 21. That is a terrible thing, a ghastly thing, and, when the Minister says—I am not now alluding to the right hon. Gentleman, but to other Ministers who are not present—that we have not so much juvenile unemployment as we had, that is perfectly true, but we who are parents know perfectly well that, if the period between the ages of 14 and 21 is passed with nothing to do, it is gone for good. I literally pray that the Government will not go on in this piecemeal way, but will have a big constructive programme. They have plenty of time and plenty of Committees. If the Minister has any doubt about it, let him put me at the head of a Committee, and I will guarantee to give him a workable, feasible plan. It might cost something, but it would not cost what unemployment among juveniles is costing to what I may call the moral and social uplift of the country at this moment. I think the Minister is doing his best, and I want to congratulate him. I would only ask him to be a little more courageous, and fight for the things he knows are right. No one in the House of Commons knows more about the subject of unemployment than the Minister of Labour, but I am afraid, when it comes to a sit-down fight, he needs some of us back-benchers to hold his hand and help him. I hope he will remember those bad old days when he and I fought the Treasury almost alone on behalf of the juveniles. I wish that all on our side would remember that anti-waste campaign in 1920, when they scrapped the Fisher Act, which is in operation in Germany—

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that this is getting rather far from the Amendment.

Viscountess AST0R: I only wanted to refer to it. They scrapped the Fisher Act, compulsory continuation schools, juvenile unemployment centres and women's training centres—everything that we had fought for in the House of Commons the Government of the day scrapped, because they said they had not the money for every one of these things to which they have had to come back at last. I beg hon. Members to look upward and forward. They have only to read history since the War to see that true economy consists in going for the things that you know are right, and not listening to the cry of those miserable people who say, "How much is it going to cost?"

Mr. LANSBURY: We have listened during this short Debate to speeches about which, happily, from the point of view of the question under discussion, everyone appears to agree; but the one thing that is lacking is the will to do it. The Minister, in making his statement and telling us what he proposes, has made it perfectly clear that what we have to expect is just exactly what the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Treasury cares to give us. I do not see that it is much use making the kind of confessions or speeches that all of us make in this Chamber, unless we who make those speeches are prepared, not only to stand by them in the manner in which they have been stood by to-night, but to bring not merely pressure but compulsion to bear upon the Treasury to find the money. It is useless, I think, to continue to talk as we do on this subject and always leave it exactly where it is. I think it was during the late Mr. Bonar Law's Government that I made a speech from the back Benches which brought me hundreds of letters on this subject from people all over the country who agreed with what I had said; but nothing of any worth has been done since, simply because people imagine that, if they merely support by words, as the Minister has done to-night, a proposal of this kind, that is the end of it.
I rose because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), I spent my holiday investigating this subject in my own constituency, and, although I thought I
knew as much about the district I represent as any man or woman can know about their district, I was horrified at the conditions which I found prevailing, with a large part of the juvenile population of East London passing into the ranks of the unemployables. I met boys and girls who had done no work at all since they left school, and none of us there, try how we could, had any chance of finding them employment. The Employment Exchanges had no vacancies. We often talk as though there were jobs waiting for them somewhere or other to which they could he sent, but I spent days and days trying to get quite intelligent boys and youths and young men situations of all kinds, and utterly failed; and there they are with nothing to do but loaf around the streets and learn whatever mischief there is to learn, and, in some cases, one can see demoralisation growing on their faces and in their whole demeanour towards life.
The hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) suggested that one of our Members wanted these young people to get into that condition, but the absolute contrary is the case, for the simple reason that we know perfectly well that people who have lost what is called character and moral, people who have lost the idea of work, are of no use in a Socialist community any more than they are of use in any other community. I would like to tell this Committee what the biggest Communist of all said to me in Russia. Lenin, speaking on this very subject, said:
The one thing to guard against in the working class is the doctrine of ca'canny, because that is of the very Devil for any revolutionary movement.
I want these boys and girls saved because I do not think that any change of any worth can be made by an unintelligent population. I think it is only by intelligence and character that you can change anything into something better than it is at the moment. Therefore, I was very glad to hear the Minister's confession tonight. All of us who know him, or have known his history, know that what he has said to-night is true. He has had an apprenticeship in this business which few men on his side or on our side can beat. But what worries me with him, and with all people who get into that kind of posi-
tion, is that they think it is sufficient to say the sort of things he has said to-night, and then put the responsibility on the Treasury. I am quite confident that, if he and his colleagues were to say to the Treasury, "We want so much money to give us sufficient of these training centres really to meet the situation," and if, were it refused, they took their courage in two hands and said, "Carry on this beastly business yourselves," they would win. It needs someone with courage to talk in this way to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whoever he may be—I do not mean the present Chancellor of the Exchequer any more than any other; it might be ours. Any Chancellor who thinks more of money than of the welfare of the boys and girls of the community is not worth his salt, and the Minister of Labour ought to think more of these boys and girls than of defending the position, which he will have to defend, of leaving them in the plight they are in just now.
Then as to girls, I am not the cheery optimist the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth is with regard to voluntary associations. We cannot get them at our end, because none of us have the money wherewith to start, but we have several fine women who are struggling with an impossible proposition and doing heroic work on behalf of the girls in our district. I cannot say enough in honour of their work, but the amount they do is small, and there is no one there with money who can subsidise it. We are bound either to get it from the guardians or from the Unemployment Fund or out of the national Exchequer, from which it ought to come. I had before me girl after girl about whom no one was bothering one bit, but who, first for a year, then for two years, had been living on the paltry, miserable pittance they were getting, first from the Employment Exchange and then from the board of guardians. Those girls are now being pushed off the boards of guardians. The Minister will say it is not by his order. He will say he has not interfered, but he has told us that unless we do certain things we cannot get loans, and we shall be dealt with, probably, as West Ham has been dealt with. But what is to become of those girls?

Mr. ERSKINE: Domestic service!

Viscountess ASTOR: Will you take them?

Mr. LANSBURY: It is the easiest thing in the world to say "domestic service." There are not sufficient vacancies for domestic service to absorb all these girls.

The CHAIRMAN: The question is not what can be done to find employment under this Amendment, but what should be done with regard to training.

Mr. LANSBURY: Certainly, occupational or any sort of training we can give them to preserve body and soul, so that they may carry on in future some work of advantage to themselves and the community. But I have to put this cold, brutal fact before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's Department pushes them off the Employment Exchange for a variety of reasons. Then they come to the boards of guardians, and between these two authorities neither of them does anything in the way of training or care for them. I deny altogether that it is impossible, or even very difficult, to deal with them. Hon. Members talk of this kind of problem as if it were something entirely new. Twenty-two years ago, when the Poor Law Commission was sitting, the whole of these problems was investigated and dealt with, reported on and discussed in the House again and again, and I believe there was more training for women previous to the War than there is to-day, though no one will deny that the need is now ever so much greater.
May I say a word about people of 18 years of age and upwards? I am probably one of the few men on my side who would say this. I am definitely and fixedly rooted in the belief that where for months on end there is no work available for people, the right thing to do with them is not merely to feed them and their dependants, but to do something in the way of training, in order to keep the body and muscles and everything in working order. A most terrible thing in the East End is the number of relatively young men, some of whom have not done a day's work since they left the Army. No one offers them any work. I cannot offer them any work. I do not know where to send them. Neither does the Employment Exchange, and there they are. You can see them standing outside the Employment Exchange or the relief office day after day. It is a worse
picture than that drawn by Carlyle 60 years ago in the first pages of "Past and Present." It is a more hopeless, a more demoralising, a more degrading picture than even he drew outside Bury St. Edmunds.
As I have said many times, this problem of the unemployed, the juveniles and the young men, is one which, if we do not settle it, will settle this society. I do not believe it is possible to go on as we are going with the men and women being driven down, and down, and down as they are now. To tell me that it is impossible, with all the brains in the nation, to find a means of dealing with these people in a satisfactory manner is to tell me what I shall not believe. Neither will I believe that we cannot afford it. If we can afford to build ships and aeroplanes, and invent gases and bombs to destroy, I am confident we can find a means to preserve the moral and character and physical energy of our people, and it is because I believe that that I hope the Committee will not be satisfied with the mere statement that we are going to have a new Clause, and it is going to depend upon the Treasury. I hope the Committee, if it is in dead earnest, and the Noble Lady the Member for Sutton, if she is in dead earnest, and the right hon. Gentleman, if he is in dead earnest, will say to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this thing is urgent, it is human life against money, and we are going to stand for human life and let the money be found from wherever money is.

Captain MACMILLAN: The character of the Debate in many ways has been very satisfactory to many of us on this side. Having ventured to criticise the Minister and the policy of the Government, I should like to say with what great satisfaction many of us have heard the statement he has made. I should like to add a word of further hope that he will press very hard for the establishment, on a wide and not a mere trumpery basis, of the training centres which have already proved so successful in the few that have already been set up. The last speaker drew, perhaps not too lurid, but still a very sad and distressing picture, of what we all know to be the condition of some parts of the country. He suggests what, I think, is not altogether true, that it is merely a
problem of finding enough jobs for people to do. If that were so, there would not really be much object in training people. The reason we attach so much importance to training is that employment is not in our opinion altogether static in its character. There is more employment available, probably, if we can provide the training. The actual facts and statistics of these training centres which have been in operation on an experimental basis are vastly encouraging, because the statistics prove that those who have been through training centres have found employment in an exceedingly high proportion of the number. It is because we feel so strongly that the fact of going through training not only provides these people with a ray of hope, but an opportunity of obtaining suitable employment fitting them to come back into the machine of industrial or social life, that we attach such tremendous imortance to the spread of the training system.
While congratulating the Minister on the announcement he has made, I hope all Members who have spoken, from whatever quarter, will press forward not a merely experimental system to be tried here and there, but will lay the foundations of a system which is really going to be comprehensive in its character, and will be carefully arranged to work with our educational system, and become in future, not a mere tinkering with the problem, but an attempt to deal with it upon a wide basis. If the right hon. Gentleman does that, he will receive the support not only of his own party but of all parties in the House, and he will do something far more. He will be able to feel that his tenure of his office has achieved at least this, that he has introduced upon a national basis a system which will be of greater advantage, probably, than many of the Measures we debate in this House.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I want to congratulate the Minister on his statement, and I have no doubt the Committee is in agreement with his proposals, but I have this difficulty in my own mind. In my constituency we have young men and women who have done no work since they left school, and we are very anxious that something should be done in regard to them.
8.0 p.m.
It is a great waste of national wealth if you allow young people to grow up without having learned how to work. I see a difficulty in connection with the training, and I would like to warn the Committee very carefully to consider some of the suggestions which have been made. I had considerable experience of training centres arising out of the War, and I noticed the same trouble in connection with all of them. When young people learned to become carpenters, for example, it was considered that when they had made a box they had done everything that was necessary. In other words, I do not believe in a system of automatic training, and I do not believe that we can take up some of the suggestions which have been made to the Committee to-night. We are faced with this difficulty. Some people think we only require to train youths for apprentice work. It is not a question of preparing young apprentices to enter existing occupations. The occupations are not there, and, unless we strike out on new lines, the probability is that we are going to do more harm than good as a result of this training. We ought to try and turn the minds of young men to the science of agriculture. I do not know how many hon. Members share the view which I hold, but I have an idea that in the course of time even a Conservative Government will require to do more to develop our land than has been done up to now. There is always a chance that some of these lads may leave this country and go elsewhere, and I would prefer that they should be trained and given some knowledge of the occupations they may go out to take up. At the present time, many of them go without having a single thought concerning the particular occupation.
The difficulty in connection with money should not, I think, be considered to any great extent. Some hon. Members might say that the Treasury could find the money, and others that the Insurance Fund should find the money. I do not trouble much about the source from which the money should come, but I do value the training. One hon. Member below the Gangway who had travelled in Germany made a statement as to his experiences. I was in Germany, too, and I know exactly what efforts have been put forth in that
country in order to train the boys and girls. But in Germany, I think, the whole thing is too automatic, and the probability is that they have a different end in view. The Committee should remember that Germany last year spent £35,000,000 directly from the State in dealing with unemployment. We spent £13,000,000, and hon. Members on the other side are sometimes aghast at the suggestion that we should spend more. Germany, who lost the War, has been able to spend £35,000,000, and we spent £13,000,000, and we won the War. I do not know how much we should have spent if we had lost the War.
In connection with the question of young girls I think there is a great need for training. The hon. Member who spoke last shared a common fallacy, that if you train a girl to be a servant she can always obtain work. A little practical experience in regard to that matter would be very useful. If I had my way, I would like to see the establishment of a labour recruiting agency for people who are down-and-out. I replied to three advertisements last week in the "Times" on behalf of a woman who was seeking work. I have not received any replies yet. There is always plenty of work when you do not want it, but somehow or other, when you are desperate, there is always a difficulty in obtaining work. I do not know how to explain it, but I have tried this thing repeatedly, and, while I have met with some little success, I have not had the success that hon. Members opposite would like people to believe was possible. I would appeal to the Minister to take up this thing. I know it looks like fighting a shadow to talk to him after the speech which he has made. I do not want lip service. I do not think that lip service is any good. We have had plenty of lip service here to-night. But this sort of thing has been going on for five or six years, and, probably, at this time next year we shall have a speech of the same kind.
I desire to point to a, very curious omission on the part of the Minister. He said what he was going to do in South Wales—and I am glad to hear it—and what he was going to do in Durham, but there is a part of the country further North that was not mentioned. It is just as well to know that in the industrial area of Mid-Lanark we have
a higher percentage of unemployment than obtains in any other part of Great Britain, and, as far as I can see, there is very little hope even in the years to come. I would, therefore, appeal to the Minister to take up this matter. Hope will be revived if we can find work. If we keep on talking without doing anything, the position will get worse and worse, and we shall be throwing away, probably, the greatest source of wealth any country can possess, and that is, the labour and training of the young.

Miss BONDFIELD: While, of course, one welcomes the small crumbs that have fallen from the table of the Government on this question, there are one or two points that I want to emphasise once more. I should like, first of all, to take up this question of the young girls. For the moment, I leave the juveniles, and I will deal with those of 18 and over. These young girls have to face, I suppose, one of the most tragic difficulties that any civilisation has presented to any girls. We have had an elementary educational system that has developed the type. These girls of 18, 19, 20 and 21 are girls who lived in a forcing house during the War. They have developed a nice taste in dress, they have been accustomed from the time of leaving school—because it was the War period when they left school—to go to places of amusement and dances. Many of these girls were encouraged, when they were quite young, to give the soldiers a good time when they came home. They have been developed in an atmosphere which was unreal, which was exceptional, which was utterly abnormal compared with life before the War.
Think of the position of the young girl who was unemployed before the War. Normally, she was with her mother. Normally, her mother taught her the domestic arts. She learned to cook and sew and do all kinds of things about the house. She was, in other words, employed in relation to the family group. But the War broke into that home life. The housing condition is such to-day that a mother has no place in which to teach her girl anything. Many of these homes have no resources to offer to girls; have no opportunity to train them for anything. An hon. Member who sits on those benches, while one of my hon. friends was speaking, interjected, "Why do
they not go into domestic service?" I remember very vividly a lady who took a very prominent part in the lament about sending girls to domestic service. I asked this lady if she would be good enough to go to the Marlborough Street Employment Exchange. I wrote to the manageress of that Exchange and asked her if she would make an appointment with this lady. I think it was, if my memory serves me, about three or four years ago. I asked her to make an appointment with this lady on the day that the girls came in to sign on.
On that particular morning, I remember, there were 200 girls signing on, and the Employment Exchange had said to those girls, "Are you prepared to take any job that is offered to you? The girls—every one of those 200 girls—said "Yes." "Are you prepared, if necessary, to take a job of domestic service?" They said "Yes." This lady who had been complaining about the lack of girls for domestic service saw these girls in the Employment Exchange on the day that they were signing on. She said that there was not one of those 200 girls whom she would take into her house. She said that they were the wrong type. They had not had any experience. They had not the aptitude for the work, and I quite saw the lady's point of view. We know that these girls are accustomed to factory work and factory discipline, and to the dressmaking workroom, or any of those occupations, admirable occupations in their own way, of such a different nature. They even train a different set of muscles, so that such girls would probably be at sea if they were suddenly asked to go into domestic service. Therefore, it is a most unreasonable thing to say, "Why do not our girls go into domestic service? when they have had no opportunity, or if you are not giving them an opportunity to train for that job.
I differ, perhaps, from a great many people on this question. I take domestic service to be a highly-skilled profession. I think it has been degraded by the conditions that have been applied to domestic service. There is not a Member in this House who does not depend upon domestic service to serve him, feed him, and keep him clean. If it were not for domestic service, we should all die of
plague or starvation. I resent most bitterly the stigma and serfdom put upon what ought to be one of the most honoured professions in the country. Until the removal of that stigma, and until you place that work—probably the most skilled and varied job a woman can be asked to do and calling for the greatest individuality and initiative—in the position it ought to occupy as a well-trained, well-regulated profession there will always be this difficulty about getting the necessary supply.
This brings me to my second point. The Central Committee on Women's Training and Employment since 1914 has been giving magnificent examples, and could have given far more examples if the Government would have let it, of the way in which the conditions of domestic service can be improved and girls can be drafted from unemployment into honourable employment under reasonable conditions. In regard to taking care of girls coming from a distance, I am happy to be able to report to this Committee that one of the most valuable results of training centres, such as Newcastle, Sheffield, Portsmouth and many others that could be named, has been that we have developed a technique in connection with the superintendents and staffs of these centres by which they know how to handle the peculiar problem of the unemployed woman and how, not only to train her in the centres, but how to get her confidence and keep in touch with her when she leaves the centres and follow her up with after-care work. After-care work I regard as most important. How has this branch of the service—this preventive work—been treated? It has been treated in the most shameful manner. Every season it gets a sort of reprieve. Every season we have had to risk the dismissal of those highly-trained technical teachers who have learned how to handle a most difficult and peculiar situation. We have had centres closed down.
I would ask the Minister of Labour or the Parliamentary Secretary to say exactly what the Minister meant when he said that they were going to repeat the grant to the Central Committee on Women's Employment. Does it mean that they are going to save us from the abominable position of having to cut down, as we have had to do this winter, our training centres, with the result that, although there has been a demand for
these centres, we have about 2,000 or 2,500 fewer girl trainees than were trained in 1926–27. That kind of thing has nearly broken the hearts of the Committee, who have given voluntary service. They pay their own expenses, and have gladly and willingly served on the Committee to try and help the Government to carry on this scheme of training centres. But every season we are met with the same difficulty; we are told that we have to cut down. Everyone who looks at the figures will see the progressive diminution of the grant since about 1924. That means no expanding of our work but a contracting of our work every season. It is one of those heartbreaking experiences which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us definitely is to come to an end.
We want these training centres for girls of over 18 years to be placed upon a permanent basis. We want these training centres while we are in a state of grave emergency so far as these young people are concerned. During the next two or three years we ought to be prepared to spend large sums of money in this salvage work, this preventive work, in order to overcome as far as we can the effects of the past six years. This salvage work is one of the most urgent things that is required. I look forward, however, beyond the experience of the temporary and grave emergency which I regard our present position to be. I look forward to a permanent scheme, when this preventive work shall be regarded as an integral part of our State schemes of unemployment insurance, and that wherever an Employment Exchange exists there shall be within the reach of every unemployed person registering at that exchange some chance for the employment for their minds and hands during the time of their unemployment.

Mr. BETTERTON: The hon. Member has put a specific question in regard to the grant, and I can give her a specific answer, which she may like to have at once. The grant that will be made to the Central Committee on Women's Training for next year will be the same amount as the grant for the current year. Therefore, that puts an end to that part of the hon. Member's fear where she expressed apprehension that the grant would be
still further reduced. It will not be reduced; it will be the same.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am sorry that the grant will not be increased. Our trouble is that we have already protested to the Minister that the grant last year was not enough. We have sent documentary evidence to show that we had to cut down our classes last year. It means that we are kept at the stagnation point at which we are now, with a shortage of 2,500 trainees as compared with 1926–27. That is the point about which we feel so bitterly. The Minister's decision keeps us in a stationary position instead of allowing us to expand. It actually keeps us at a lower point than in 1925–26 and still lower than in 1924–25. That is the difficulty and the danger that we deeply deplore.
There is nothing novel about this preventive service which I want to build up side by side with our State insurance system. It is a service for keeping our young people fit and adaptable for any opportunity that may occur in connection with new industries and expanding trades. We want this matter treatd as a business proceeding. The American insurance companies are not Socialist organisations; I believe they are highly industrialised in a sense that would please the heart of the greatest capitalist in this Committee, and they set aside considerable sums of money to provide gratis service for insured persons under their schemes in what they call preventive work. I believe that in the case of certain sickness insurance companies they provide free of charge of any kind any specialist who may be required to assist their insured persons in restoration to health. It is regarded as a business proposition to prevent people from having long illnesses and to keep them well. Surely, in connection with our labour power, it is a business proposition for this country to keep people fit, efficient, intelligent, and keen about work, because when they are out of work month after month and year after year the results are tragic.
There are no members of this Committee who would dare stand up and say that their characters would be sufficiently strong to enable them to maintain a high purpose and a high attitude towards life, which is the right inheritance of twentieth century civilisation, if they had the same experience as so many people
of being out of work for these long periods. When I was out of work for three months, I know that at the end of those three months I was not as confident, as efficient, as hopeful, and as competent from the standpoint of service to my trade and my country as I was at the beginning of the three months. If that could happen to me in three months with the many resources which I had to occupy my mind, what must it be for people with less resources, and particularly for people living in miserable surroundings under conditions which drive them on to the streets because there is no relief and no interest in their houses? It is these horrible circumstances which make the situation so terrible.
I should like to deal with another aspect which presses upon me so much that sometimes I feel I can hardly bear it, and that is the development of industry which creates most difficult problems when people get out of Work. I have said that before in this House, and I wish to repeat it, because it is not sufficiently understood. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) has told us that the demand to-day was for more skill. I venture to challenge that statement. The demand to-day is for more machine minders. The great millions of our people are being reduced to machine minders. By the automatic development of machinery which is taking place and by the sub-division of processes, they are being deprived of skill and the chance of learning any craft, and the result is that when they are unemployed they have not that flexibility which the skilled craftsman has and which has been his heritage ever since his apprenticeship. Skill is denied them.
The conditions of post-War industry are vastly different from those of the pre-War period in this respect. Outside a small group of highly-skilled people—and those small groups are required to be more highly-skilled than ever before— the great mass of our peope are being robbed of the chance of skill, and that means that they are terrified of turning from a job which they know to the infinite unknown of the industrial world. Therefore, these training centres are a necessary part of the preventive work of
this country in regard to industry. Just as you have in your medical services your preventive work, as your sickness insurance, by its preventive work, was intended to prevent people getting sick, and if they get sick to make them well as soon as possible, so these training centres should be regarded as a preventive service to keep people in good health and fitness on the labour side of life. It is from that point of view that I urge that the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has promised to bring in should be of the widest possible extent, that it should be courageous, and that it should cover the whole ground. I urge that he should take powers in this Bill and that he should not waste still more years; that he should seek now the legislative sanction of this House to set up as quickly as opportunity offers this network of permanent preventive training machinery.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. Member who has just spoken, and also another hon. Member who spoke on the Opposition Benches, gave the impression, quite apart from the pros and cons of the particular principle under discussion, that the Government should get on with the work; no matter how much is spent, they are quite willing that any amount of money should be provided. They are perfectly willing, and if I were sitting on the Opposition Benches I should probably do the same, for the Government to spend as much money as was possible on any project they bring forward. At the same time that they are criticising the Government for not spending money on these particular questions, hon. Members opposite, when any question of national economy is under consideration, when the whole of Government expenditure is held up for review, are the first people to say that the Government are spending more money than they did when they were in office. You cannot have the criticism both ways. I do not rise, however, to talk upon that matter, I only want to ask one or two questions of the Minister. We are very much in the dark in regard to this problem. I do not wish to argue against training centres, but, if the Minister of Labour is going to bring forward an Amendment to the Bill in regard to these training centres, I should
like to know exactly what form it will take and how much money is going to be put aside for the purpose?
There is an Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) asking that £750,000 shall be set aside for training centres. I should like to know if that is the sum which the Government intend to put aside for this purpose. When the Labour Government was in power and the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) was Minister of Labour, I do not remember any Amendment of this kind being brought forward to the Unemployment Insurance Bill. No doubt there was a different right hon. Gentleman occupying the position of Chancellor of the Exchequer, because the one point on which the Government seem to have given way on this Bill, as far as I understand it, is that the money is not going to be taken from the Unemployment Insurance Fund but from the Exchequer. It seems to me that they have shelved their own responsibility as far as the Fund is concerned, and are going to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a grant for these training centres, and in that case the responsibility for raising the money would be on the Treasury. If that is the case, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should be present whilst the matter is being debated, so that we might know exactly what are the financial consequences.
With regard to the principle concerned, I was rather disturbed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour. Speaking strongly in favour of the training centres he said that there were fewer unemployed at the ages of 16 to 18 than at older ages, that they would not be taught—as I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's speech—any particular job, but that these training centres would be of much use in looking after the moral welfare of young men and young women; their minds would be kept occupied. That is what I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say. I think the Committee should have more information on this subject. Hon. Members should not be misled into imagining that if we spend £750,000 on training centres for the unemployed, they are really going to train them for a job.
According to the Minister of Labour, they are not going to be trained for jobs; they are going to be looked after. If that is the case, if they are to be only a sort of glorified welfare centres, then I say that the right hon. Gentleman should be very careful to realise upon what road he is being led in this Amendment. An amount of £750,000 will not be the sum which he will spend if he carries this proposal through to a proper conclusion. I hope the Government have realised what this principle and policy mean and that we shall have a proper explanation before the matter is finally passed.

Mr. HARDIE: I am sorry the hon. and gallant Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) is not in his place. He considered that people who had had training in these training centres got jobs easier than those who had not been trained, and the Noble Lady, the hon. Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) agreed with the hon. Member. That seems to me to show a lack of knowledge and that hon. Members who make these statements have not made any careful investigation. The idea that it is easier for boys and girls to get a job if they have some kind of training is untrue, and I challenge any hon. Member to say that a young person who gets a job does not get it at the expense of older men.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: A little piecer in a cotton mill.

Mr. HARDIE: You are dealing with something quite different. I am dealing with the matter now before the Committee. What is meant by training? What does the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees mean? Does he mean that you are going to train a boy to take his place in industry? What is meant by taking one's place in industry? The development since the War in regard to the skilled trades of this country has led to this position, that instead of the all-round trained man finding a place in industry, we are now getting sections in which they have to specialise in one direction. Take the manufacture of am electric motor or dynamo. There you have seven different sections of people, each doing their little bit in the production of that motor or dynamo, but not one of those persons in any of the
sections could tell you much about a dynamo or a motor; if they could tell you anything at all. They are simply trained in one section of the production, and you get to this stage, that people engaged in the production of parts of an instrument are not able to recognise the part they have made when it is assembled in the complete article.
What is to be the basis of the training? Is it to be a superficial knowledge in order to carry out a certain part in the production of a complete article, or is it for the purpose of giving general knowledge, so as to make it easier for the man to apply himself to whatever work might come along. Or is it going to be what is now taking place, the stultifying of the naturally intelligent development by trying to sectionise them for some little job? The Minister has to face the fact that unless he is going to train in a logical way he might as well stop wasting money, because it is a waste of money unless lads are trained for something definite. My next question is, where are jobs to be found for the men who are trained? To hear some of the arguments used, one would think that what we were short of in this country was trained and skilled people. The argument appears to be that if only men were trained and skilled there would be plenty of work for them. That is utter nonsense. I have among my friends five Bachelors of Science. One is wheeling a barrow in brickwords; another is doing casual work at the docks; a third, who is in a better position, is doing something that he does not like to do, working in a margarine factory. If the provision of training meant a guarantee of employment, it would be an easy way of solving unemployment, because all we would have to do would be to train everybody. But that kind of argument is absolutely beside the point.
I have been dealing with the Minister of Labour and the Employment Exchange in the Springburn Division in regard to what is called the training of youth for agriculture. I have had some very serious cases in relation to the treatment of boys taken from their homes for what is called three months' farm training. Anyone who knows anything about agriculture knows that you might be able in three months to give a boy an idea of the names of certain things connected with
farming, but you can do very little more. Yet here we are spending money and saying to these boys at the end of three months, "Now you are ready, if you care to go to Canada or some other country." We know what happens to them there; at least I do. Since the War 300,000 acres of British land which bore wheat have gone out of cultivation. Why does not the Minister of Labour concern himself with the restoration of the cultivation of those 300,000 acres of land? It is a waste of money to train youths in agriculture unless you have power to compel those who have accepted training to go abroad, and that is a thing which parents would never tolerate in this country. I know the details of the cases of two youths who, after training for three months, went to Canada. They were put on two different farms 30 miles apart. On these farms they were the only young people. The one boy started to have meetings with the other, and as the farms were 30 miles apart a row began with their employers because the youths had to leave their work in order to see each other. It is useless to talk about being able to train anyone for anything in three months. I hope the Minister will see to it that, if we are to have a system of training, it will be based upon realities and not upon fiction, and that it will be detached from Bills of this kind.

Mr. BETTERTON: I would ask the Committee now to come to a decision. I am loath to move the Closure.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Parliamentary Secretary's statement really gave us no information.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I resent the proposal of the Parliamentary Secretary. Many congratulations have been bestowed on the Minister in respect of a concession which he is alleged to have made, and yet up to this moment we have not heard exactly what the concession is. The Government introduced an Unemployment Insurance Bill that was supposed to be actuarily sound, according to their opinion. In that Bill they reduce considerably the benefits payable to young persons. They take away something which young persons have been enjoying, and they put nothing in its place. This afternoon, as an afterthought, they come down to the House
and say, "We will do something for these young persons." They do not say what it is they are to do, and they do not say who is to pay for it. Before the Closure is moved it is incumbent on the Parliamentary Secretary to be courteous enough to tell us exactly what the Government's plans are. Is this the way the Government of the day regard the future of the youth of this country? They do not even know what their own plans are. Right in the middle of a discussion which has endured for several days, the Minister of Labour gets up and says, "We are going to do something in the way of centres for juveniles." The House has a right to know what those proposals are. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to be courteous enough to explain them to us, because some very important principles arise.
In the first place, who is to pay for the instruction and what is the instruction to be? It would be an immoral proposal to take from the Unemployment Insurance Funds, which have been subscribed for a particular purpose, money to educate the young people of this country. They are entitled to that education from another source. They will never get that education if the Ministry is only going to provide some ineffective substitute for it, and, therefore, I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to say with more particularity who is going to pay for this education and what is the education going to be. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) illustrated the futility of the education at present provided. She said, quite correctly, that Plymouth was the most enlightened education authority in the Kingdom. I do not think any Member of the Committee would dispute that assertion, but she gave an illustration of the futility of the kind of instruction provided for these young persons when she said that a young man within her acquaintance had entered one of these centres waving the red flag and had come out waving a volume of Shakespeare. I do not know which of the two acts was the more insane. Waving a volume of Shakespeare will not get a man a job of work anywhere; it will not even get him back to Parliament. Is it seriously suggested that money which has been subscribed for the contingency of unemploy-
ment is to be wasted on teaching children to wave volumes of Shakespeare?
The Government ought to know what it is that they want taught to these young people. The hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) has spoken of the superfluity of bachelors of science in the country and, I take it, the Government do not propose to teach these temporarily unemployed persons to be bachelors of science or skilled engineers. What should be done is not to give them any kind of intellectual instruction at all—the school or the university is the proper place for that—nor on the other hand to teach them to be skilled members of a craft, because there is no time for that, but to teach them some kind of handiwork which will be useful to them whether they get employment or not. They should be taught how to mend windows, repair leaking taps, affix handles and knockers on doors and other things which they can do in their own homes if they cannot do them anywhere else. Then the instruction will not be entirely wasted. The Minister need not talk cant about the difficulties of transferring young women to Birmingham and so forth. What is the good of sending them to Birmingham anyhow? It is only talking a lot of rubbish about the moral supervision of young women who are better able to look after themselves than the Minister is to look after this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman ought to devote his mind to thinking out what is of practical advantage to these temporarily unemployed persons. There may be some justification for spending the money which they have themselves subscribed, in order to teach them something that will be useful to them whether they got work or not; but there is no justification for making them into inefficient students of Shakespeare or teaching them higher mathematics and the differential calculus—which apparently is thought advisable by some hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate.
I, like many other hon. Members, have had the curiosity to visit these centres in Plymouth and, it being conceded that Plymouth is the most up-to-date and efficient education authority, I must say that something is done for these young people. There, I know, some persons who are most competent for the job which they are performing, are giving a great deal of time and thought to teaching these young boys and girls how to write
English composition and how to enjoy Dickens and other literature and so forth. They are also teaching these young people, so far as lies in their power, a little of carpentry and of other manual arts in an unsatisfactory manner. But they have no programme laid down by the Ministry of Lahour. The Ministry does, not care "a two-penny hang." All the Minister cares about is how to reduce their benefit and make it impossible for them to sustain themselves either mentally, morally or physically. That is all the Government do in this Bill. What they ought to have done first was to have asked, "Before we reduce their benefit, how can we make them into more efficient, capable and self-reliant citizens and how can we provide them with the instruction which they ought to have?" That should have been the first thing in the Government programme, but it has come last.
I seriously repeat the invitation made by the hon. Member for Thanet (Mr. Harmsworth). He invited the Minister to explain his scheme. The reason why the right hon. Gentleman does not do so is because he does not know what the scheme is. The Parliamentary Secretary replies by trying to move the Closure. I have been fortunate enough to escape the Closure, but the hon. Member for Thanet is one to whom the Parliamentary Secretary ought to respond. The hon. Member for Thanet has been the only consistent supporter of the Minister since the proceedings on this Bill began. The hon. Member for Thanet has made many speeches on this Bill which have aroused violent feelings of indignation in my breast and he is the only genuine friend of the Minister of Labour in the Committee, but to-night he made a speech with which I was in entire agreement and upon which I congratulate him. He put his finger on the real point under discussion, and the real point is that we do not know what we are discussing. The hon. Member made that aspect of the case transparently clear—so clear that it is only the Parliamentary Secretary who cannot see it because he has created such a fog in the course of these discussions that he cannot see anything. I am not at all surprised that the hon. Member for
Thanet described him as being in the dark. We are all in the dark, and if the Parliamentary Secretary feels himself capable of doing so, I should be delighted if he would throw a little light upon this question. The hon. Gentleman however is anxious to move the Closure. He does not want the question discussed because he does not know anything about it. He does not know what his own proposals are.
The hon. Member for Thanet, in the course of his eloquent speech, called attention to another vital matter. It has been suggested that the Treasury ought to pay for some part of this training which has not been adequately defined. It is rank discourtesy to the Committee that no representative of the Treasury is present. It is rank discourtesy that the Minister of Education, when the position of these young people is being discussed, has not even the curiosity to attend in order to know what is being said about them by the Minister of Labour or by myself.

Major PRICE: Does the hon. Member suggest that the cost is to come out of the Treasury? The Minister said it was coming out of the Fund.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is an illustration of the position in which the Committee has been put. The Minister of Labour made a statement regarding which the hon. Member for Thanet said he could not make head or tail of it He did not know who was to pay for the scheme and I find myself in exactly the same position but the hon. and gallant Member for Pembroke (Major Price), inspired from what source I know not, professes—

Major PRICE: My source is the speech of the Minister himself. He said the whole cost would be borne by the Insurance Fund.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. BETTERTON: rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 233: Noes, 138.

Division No. 401.]
AYES.
[8.55 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Fielden, E. B.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Albery, Irving James
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Forrest, W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Apsley, Lord
Galbraith, J. F. W.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gates, Percy
Pennefather, Sir John


Astor, Viscountess
Gibbs. Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Atholl, Duchess of
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perring, Sir William George


Atkinson, C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Goff, Sir Park
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pilcher, G.


Balniel, Lord
Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Power, Sir John Cecil


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Radford, E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Raine, Sir Walter


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hanbury, C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bennett, A. J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Bethel, A.
Harland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Betterton, Henry B.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hartington, Marquess of
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)


Blundell, F. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvey. Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rye, F. G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Haslam, Henry C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Briggs, J. Harold
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Brittain, sir Harry
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Sandon, Lord


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Walter
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hilton. Cecil
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Burman, J. B.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Skelton, A. N.


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney. N.)
Smithers, Waldron


Cautley, Sir Henry s.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hume-Williams. Sir W. Ellis
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Christie, J. A.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Churchman, sir Arthur C.
Hurst, Gerald B.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Clarry, Reginald George
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Clayton, G. C.
Iveagh, Countess of
Sugden, Sir Wilfred


Cobb, Sir Cyril
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Tasker, R. Inigo


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Templeton, W. P.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, J. Q.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tinne, J. A.


Cope, Major William
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Couper, J. B.
Long, Major Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Waddington, R.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Crookshank. Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
MacAndrew Major Charles Glen
Warrender, Sir Victor


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macintyre, Ian
Watts, Dr. T.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset. Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wells, S. R.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Dawson, Sir Philip
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central


Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Dixey, A. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Drewe, C.
Malone, Major P. B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duckworth, John
Margesson, Captain D.
Withers, John James


Eden, Captain Anthony
Mason. Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Merriman, F. B.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Mever, sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Ellis, R. G.
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


England. Colonel A.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Moore. Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Major Sir Harry Barnston and Mr.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Penny.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Sitch, Charles H.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Baker, Walter
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Barker. G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Barnes, A.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snell, Harry


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stamford, T. W.


Bondfield, Margaret
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Stephen, Campbell


Sowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Broad, F. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Strauss, E. A.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, T.
Sullivan, J.


Bromley, J.
Kirkwood, D.
Sutton, J. E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, George
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lawrence, Susan
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Cape, Thomas
Lindley, F. W.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.I


Charleton, H. C.
Lowth, T.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Clowes, S.
Lunn, William
Thurtle. Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Mackinder, W.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
MacLaren, Andrew
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. p.


Connolly, M.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
March, S.
Viant, S. P.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. Z. (Rhondda)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Murnin, H.
Webb, Rt. Hen. Sidney


Day, Colonel Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Wellock, Wilfred


Dennison, R.
Oliver, George Harold
Welsh, J. C.


Edge, Sir William
Owen, Major G.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wiggins, William Martin


Gibbins, Joseph
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Gillett, George M.
Potts, John S.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gosling, Harry
Riley, Ben
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ritson, J.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, Rt. Hon Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bronwich)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Greenall, T.
Robinson,W. C. (York, W. R., Elland)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Rose, Frank H.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Scrymgeour, E.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Sexton, James
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes


Hardie, George D.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 145; Noes, 235.

Division No. 402.]
AVES.
[9.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dalton, Hugh
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hayday, Arthur


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Day, Colonel Harry
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Dennison, R.
Hirst, G. H.


Baker, Walter
Duckworth, John
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Edge, Sir William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Barnes, A.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
England, Colonel A.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Bondfield, Margaret
Fenby, T. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Forrest, W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)


Broad, F. A.
Gardner, J. P.
Kelly, W. T.


Bromfield, William
Gibbins, Joseph
Kennedy, T.


Bromley, J.
Gillett, George M.
Kirkwood, D.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gosling, Harry
Lansbury, George


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawrence, Susan


Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)
Lawson, John James


Charleton, H. C.
Greenall, T.
Lindley, F. W.


Clowes, S.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lowth, T.


Cluse, W. S.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lunn, William


Clynes, Rt." Hon. John R.
Grundy, T. W.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)


Compton, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mackinder, W.


Connolly, M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
MacLaren, Andrew


Cove, W. G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hardie, George D.
March, S.


Montague, Frederick
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Varley, Frank B.


Morris, R. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Vlant, S. P.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Murnln, H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Oliver, George Harold
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Owen, Major G.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wellock, Wilfred


Palin, John Henry
Snell, Harry
Welsh, J. C.


Paling, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Westwood, J.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stamford, T. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Ponsonby, Arthur
Stephen, Campbell
Whlteley, W.


Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wiggins, William Martin


Riley, Ben
Strauss, E. A.
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Ritson, J.
Sullivan, Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W.Bromwich)
Sutton, J. E.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Rose, Frank H.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Saklatvala, Shapurji
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Windsor, Walter


Scrymgeour, E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wright, W.


Scurr, John
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Sexton, James
Townend, A. E.



Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —




Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Hayes.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Albery, Irving James
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Centr'l)
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davles, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hume, Sir G. H.


Apsley, Lord
Davles, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Astor, Viscountess
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hurst, Gerald B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Atkinson, C.
Dlxey, A. C.
Iveagh, Countess of


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Drewe, C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Bainlel, Lord
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Ellis, R. G.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, Lord(Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Knox, Sir Alfred


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Lamb, J. Q.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Falle. Sir Bertram G.
Long, Major Eric


Bennett, A. J.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Looker, Herbert William


Bethel, A.
Fielden, E. B.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Betterton, Henry B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lumley, L. R.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Blundell, F. N.
Galbralth, J. F. W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Macintyre, Ian


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gates, Percy
McLean, Major A.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macmillan, Captain H.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Briggs, J. Harold
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Brittaln, Sir Harry
Goff, Sir Park
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Malone, Major P. B.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Margesson, Captain D.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Merriman, F. B.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Meyer, Sir Frank


Burman, J. B.
Hanbury, C.
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Harland, A.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Campbell, E. T.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harrison. G. J. C.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hartington, Marquess of
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harvey. G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Christie, J. A.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Haslam, Henry C.
Nelson, Sir Frank


Clarry, Reginald George
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Clayton, G. C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Heneaqe, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pennefather, Sir John


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hills, Major John Walter
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hilton, Cecil
Perring, Sir William George


Cooper, A. Duff
Holt, Captain H. P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Couper, J. B.
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Pilcher, G.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pildlten, Sir Philip




Power, Sir John Cecil
Shepperson, E. W.
Waddington, R.


Price, Major C. W. M.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Radford, E. A.
Skeiton, A. N.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A. L. (Kingtton-on-Hull)


Raine, Sir Walter
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n A Klnc'dlnt, C.)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Raid, D. D. (County Down)
Smithert, Waldron
Watts, Dr. T.


Remer, J. R.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.
Wells, S. R.


Rice, Sir Frederick
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Strettord)
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel Georg


Rye, F. G.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Winterton Rt. Hon. Earl


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Tasker, R. Inigo
Withers, John James


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Templeton, W. P.
Wolmer, Viscount


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, ridgwater)


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.).


Sanderson, Sir Frank
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sandon, Lord
Tinne, J. A.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of



Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mel.(Renfrew,W.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
TELLERS FOR THE NOES. —


Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Major Cope and Mr. Penny.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
(b) after the words 'suitable employment,' in paragraph (iii) of Sub-section (i), insert the words 'in his usual occupation.'
These words "suitable employment" are found in the principal Act, Section 7 (1, iii), and the reason I have put the Amendment down is that wherever in this Section of the principal Act the words "employment" or "casual employment" or "suitable employment" occur, the succeeding Sub-sections alter them, and the words "in his usual occupation" are put in; and for the words "usual employment" the words "usual occupation" are substituted. I do not understand why, if it is necessary to do that throughout the rest of the Section, it is not done in paragraph (iii), where it is stated that he is capable of and available for work, hut unable to obtain suitable employment. I understand that there are many explanations, but I want to know which is the right one. When you put in the words "in his usual occupation," does it mean a new set of Regulations affecting men who come under the Clause. If so, I would like to know if there are any such Regulations as to "usual occupation," if it is proposed to provide any, and, if so, will they be laid before the House before the Report stage?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I might point out at this stage that this Amendment, and the next one in the name of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw)—in page 4, line 11, to leave out paragraph (b)—and, indeed, the seven Amendments lower on the Paper begin-
ning at the first one in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood)—in page 4, line 28, to leave out paragraph (ii)—really deal with the same subject. It will be a pure waste of time of the Committee to discuss each of these particular Amendments in detail, and I suggest that we have a general discussion on this particular Amendment.

Mr. BROWN: May I suggest, with all respect, that the better course would be to have the general discussion on the next Amendment because that raises a rather larger point and gives a different issue for a Division? My point is rather narrow. I am moving the Amendment in order to get an explanation and I do not wish to deprive the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) of a chance of a Division on a wider issue.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member will be content with an explanation and then ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, it might be equally convenient to have the discussion on the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw).

Mr. BROWN: If the Committee are willing, I am ready to do that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: You say that we shall have an opportunity for a general discussion, but then when we start a general discussion you accept the Closure from those jokers over there and shut us out.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That is a different point altogether.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: But it is the truth.

Mr. STEPHEN: Do I understand that your decision refers to the Amendment to omit paragraph (i) of Sub-section (2)? Would not such a discussion cut out that Amendment?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, it will not interfere with that at all. I propose to have the full discussion on the Amendment to omit paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1), and that would not interfere with the discussion of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown), in page 4, line 11, after the word "provisos" to insert "(a)"—or of the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala)—in page 4, line 17, to leave out paragraph (c)—or the next Amendment—in page 4, line 20, at the end to insert the words
and the words from the words 'and the remuneration received' to the end of the paragraph, shall cease to have effect.
or the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen)—in page 4, line 23, to leave out paragraph (i).

Mr. T. SHAW: Do I understand that I have to move the Amendment standing in my name, to leave out paragraph?(b)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Oh, no. The Amendment hefore the Committee at the moment is the one which has been moved by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown). I understand that if the Minister gives him a satisfactory answer he will withdraw the Amendment.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am not quite sure that I quite apprehend the point on which the hon. Member wants an answer. Perhaps he will put it again.

Mr. BROWN: There are three points on which I want an explanation. First, why are the words "usual employment" changed to "usual occupation"? Second, why do the words "usual occupation" not appear in Sub-section 3, where the words used are "suitable employment." Third, if those changes are made, are there to be any new Regulations bearing on that change in phraseology, and, if so, have they been made.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: With regard to the first and third points, dealing with the insertion of the word "occupation" instead of "employment." That is purely a verbal alteration, because the word "occupation" has been
used before. As regards Regulations, so far as I know there are no regulations about "employment." It is a question of judging whether the employment or occupation is similar to the occupation in which the man has been previously employed. The effect of the hon. Member's Amendment would be this. He has put down an Amendment to the old Sub-section (iv), I think it is, of Section 7 of the Act of 1920.

Mr. BROWN: Section (iii).

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The old Sub-section (iii). The effect of the Amendment would simply be this, that the claimant could refuse with impunity any work which was not his own occupation. That would be entirely contrary to the whole system in force under every Act since 1920. One after another the Acts lay down conditions as to work in a person's own occupation or in an alternative occupation. They lay down the rule that the rate of wages in a job in his own occupation which he can be offered must be equal to what ought to be obtained in that occupation, and they lay down conditions as to the rate of wages which should be offered in alternative occupations, but none of them has ever said that a claimant can refuse with impunity any work not in his own occupation. That would be the effect of the Amendment, and I really do not think that is what the hon. Member wishes.

Mr. BROWN: I am glad to have had that explanation, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. T. SHAW: I beg to move, in page 4, line 11, to leave out paragraph (b).
I cannot understand the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) withdrawing his Amendment after hearing that explanation.

Mr. BROWN: May I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? I withdrew for this reason, that I should not have—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Brown) has been withdrawn with the leave of the Committee, and we have gone on to the next Amendment, and I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to confine himself to his own Amendment.

Mr. SHAW: I express my regret that, unwittingly, I referred to something to which I ought not to have referred, but the Minister's explanation leaves me more confounded than ever. He appears to think that these alterations of words are quite simple little things which make no difference. If I have read the principal Act correctly, they make a very great difference, and it is to the disadvantage of the insured person. The present conditions are that a man shall not be refused benefits—I want the Committee to bear in mind the phrase "shall not be refused benefits" on certain grounds, that is, if he refuses,
an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable than, those which he habitually obtained in his usual employment in that district, or would have obtained had he continued to be0 so employed; or
(c) an offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those generally observed in that district by agreement between associations of employers and employees or, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in that district by good employers.
As the law now stands, an unemployed person cannot be refused benefit because of the fact that he has refused to accept employment in his own district at a lower wage or under worse conditions than he habitually enjoys or to accept employment in another district at worse wages and conditions than the trade union conditions in that district. If we read the principal Act as it will be if the Amendment proposed by this Bill is accepted and bear in mind the guarantees the man now has that he cannot be penalised for refusing employment either in his own trade in his own district or outside his own district at terms worse than those dealt with by ' a joint arrangement between employers and employes or, if those joint arrangements do not exist, on terms worse than those generally recognised by good employers, it will be seen that the position, if we accept this simple looking' Amendment, will be that, if he refuses an offer of employment in his usual occupation, he cannot be penalised, but, if he refuses another offer, he can be penalised. If we accept this Amendment, the Section will read:
Provided that a person shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has de clined an offer of employ-
ment in his usual occupation in the district where he was last ordinarily employed at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained in his usual occupation in that district, or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed;
There is no guarantee to the man at all that, if he be offered a job outside his usual occupation, he has any right to refuse at all, whatever the conditions may be, if this be accepted. The principal Act will also read:
a person shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment in his usual occupation in any other district at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those generally observed in that respect.
There is not a shadow of guarantee in regard to any other employment at all. The Minister by this Amendment has simply done this, that, whereas the man now has a guaiantee that he cannot be penalised either in his own district or outside his own district for declining to accept a position under less favourable conditions than trade union conditions, if this Amendment be accepted, he has no guarantee at all outside his own occupation. I suggest that that is what this innocent looking Amendment does. The Minister ought really to give us a very good explanation of what it really means. My submission is that it is as clear as daylight, if you read the original Act as it will be if amended, that you are taking away from the man every right he now possesses to fair treatment with the exception of his usual occupation.
The original Act gives him a guarantee outside his usual occupation that he shall not be ruled out or deemed not to have fulfilled the statutory condition if he refuses to accept a job at what we generally term on this side blackleg rates or under blacklegging conditions. By this Amendment to the original Act it will be laid down that he will not have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions if he refuses an offer of employment in his usual occupation either in his own district or outside his own district, but there is no guarantee to him whatever, in the case of any other job except his own, whether outside his own district or in it, that he will not be refused benefit, whatever the terms offered to him or whatever the job. If my reading of the Bill be correct and if this is what the
Amendment will do, it was owing to the Committee that the Minister should have explained what he was going to do. I hope he will be able to prove that I am wrong, but, if I am right, it seems to me a gross abuse of legislation by reference to introduce what is apparently an innocent Amendment but which will have very detrimental effects indeed to the insured persons. I hope that the Minister will be able to prove that I am wrong. It will be no satisfaction to me if I find that I am right. I have taken the trouble of having these Clauses in the original Act with the Amendments typed out for me so that I could see exactly what it meant, but I can come to no other conclusion except that the adding of these words to the Section takes away every protection from the man outside his usual occupation.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am very glad to make the position clear, because it is a complicated business, and the right hon. Gentleman has made a slip in it. First of all, let me repeat, as a merely verbal matter, what I put to the hon. Member in whose name the first Amendment stood. The words I used to him were that it was a verbal Amendment, because it applied to the substitution of "usual occupation" for "usual employment." The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood it. I am sure he will acquit me of any wish to mislead him. We may differ, but I have never attempted to mislead him. This paragraph (b) is divided into two parts and the second part of it substitutes the words "usual occupation" for "usual employment." If the hon. Member whose Amendment was in question before will turn to the paragraph, he will see that that is merely a verbal Amendment and nothing more. The whole question of substance comes in the first three lines. I think we have now cleared away the first cause of misunderstanding.

Mr. BROWN: That is why I gave way in regard to my Amendment.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Yes, and I am very grateful to the hon. Member for taking that course. The last three lines indicate a mere verbal Amendment. If hon. Members will compare the last three lines—they are very difficult to follow, and I am the first to acknowledge it—of the Clause and turn to the Section of the principal Act, para-
graph (b), they will find in the fourth line the words "in his usual employment" so that this is merely a verbal matter and there is not the change which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston apprehends. In another occupation the insured person receives a safeguard by Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of this Bill. The safeguard is that it should be on conditions not less favourable than those usually observed between associations of employers and employed. The insured person receives this safeguard in the new occupation.
May I try to make clear what is undoubtedly a complicated business? Let me first put the present law. As regards standard benefit, a man in his own district can refuse without losing benefit any offer of employment in any trade at wages lower than those he could have obtained in his own trade. That right is given under paragraph (b) of Clause 7 of the Act of 1920 and is dealt with in paragraph (b) of the proviso to Section (1). In other districts than his own, he has to take the standard rates of the job whether lower than those in his own trade or not. So far as standard benefit is concerned, in his own district he can refuse rates lower than in his own trade; but in another district he has to take the standard district rate for the job. In extended benefit, under the present law the man must accept any offer suited to his capacity, and there is no safeguard about the rates in that case. When it comes to the Bill you get, so to speak, a telescoping of standard and extended benefit; and, take it all in all, I think that by telescoping the two the result is to the advantage of the man.
I now come to the change made by this Bill. This Measure confines the refusal of an offer of employment in his own district at lower wages to his usual occupation. A man can refuse a job in his own district at lower rates than in his usual occupation, but when it comes to another occupation other than his usual occupation he has to take the rates of the job. On the other hand, when it comes to a new occupation he is safeguarded as to the proper rate of the job, but the safeguarding is given by the words at the end of paragraph (ii) of Sub-section (2). Therefore, we get to this general position under the Bill, which, on the whole, I think is more advantageous to the man than the present
law. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO!"] Well, that is my view. The position under the Bill will be that whether in his own district or in another district a man can refuse an offer at lower rates in his own trade, but after a reasonable time he must take an offer at the proper rate in another trade at the rate for the job. Therefore, protection is given for a reasonable time which the man did not have under extended benefit. Of course, he cannot stand up for the rates in another trade being the same as the rates which he previously obtained in his own trade.
I have tried to explain a complicated position as briefly as I can. In making this proposal, I have not copied a model of the past from the Benches opposite, but the model of the present time. This Clause, so far as I know, follows precisely the opinion that was given in the evidence by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) on behalf of the trade unions before the Blanesburgh Committee, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) was present and I assume that he tacitly acquiesced. On page 185, Question 1845, of the Blanesburgh Committee's Report, the hon. Member for West Nottingham said:
Would you require a man to accept, or penalise him if he refused it, any kind of work before he was entitled to maintenance? First of all, it should be employment for which the man was suitable.
It must be work he can do?—That is right.
Is it more than work he can do? Must he be offered work he would like to do, or work which it is not inconvenient for him to do?—Anything suitable to the man is an offer of employment. It need not necessarily be the same employment as he has been following, and if it is offered at the proper rate of wages for that class of employment, he is not entitled to refuse. You may get some circumstances which would have to be oonsidered if you wanted to transfer a man from one employment to another.
In other words, it must be reasonable. The effect of the provisions of this Bill are, so far as I am aware, and I have considered the matter with great care, precisely in accordance with that evidence. With regard to the perfectly natural difficulty in understanding a Measure like this Bill, may I state that the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Preston is safeguarded when it comes to a different employment by the words at the end of Subsection (2).

Mr. SHAW: I am sorry that I cannot accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. What he has said leaves me quite unsatisfied, and, if I may make an interjection here, I would express the hope that, whoever is the Minister of Labour—the present Minister if the cataclysm occurs of which he spoke, and he wants a new Bill—will never again consent to have an Unemployment Insurance Bill by reference. Let me call the Minister's attention to the principal Act. A man now has the right to refuse employment in his own district at wages less than, or on conditions less favourable than, he habitually obtains in his usual employment in that district, or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed.

Mr. L. THOMPSON: May I, for the purpose of accuracy, point out that the paragraph from which the right hon. Gentleman is quoting, actually reads as follows:
an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed.
That has rather a different construction.

Mr. SHAW: I am reading the Act itself. It says that a man shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined:
(b) an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed.
It is quite evident that under this Section no man in his own district can be asked to accept a job at lower wages or on worse conditions than the wages and conditions obtaining in his own trade. Is there any question about that?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will take that, subject to one quite small qualification, namely, that the right hon. Gentleman has omitted to read the words of the Act which he himself passed. The Section, as amended by the right hon. Gentleman's Act of 1924, reads as follows:
Provided that a person shall not be deemed to have failed to fulfil the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined—
(b) an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed ait a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he might reasonably have expected to obtain, having regard to those which he habitually obtained in his usual employment in that district.
It makes very little difference, but there is just a shade of difference, which might be noted as we are being very accurate.

Mr. SHAW: I am sorry again that I cannot accept that. This Bill says, not that the Act of 1924 shall be amended, but that "Section seven of the principal Act shall be amended as follows," so that it is quite beyond the mark to quote the Act of 1924, 1922 or 1921. This Bill says that Section 7 of the principal Act shall be amended, and it goes on:
The following shall be substituted…
and then the provisos are given. If you are going to amend Section so-and-so of the Act of 1924, why do you not say so? It is the Bill that we are dealing with, and not an opinion of the Minister or an opinion of my own; and the Bill says plainly that you are modifying Section 7 of the principal Act, which says quite distinctly and clearly that you cannot offer a man a position in his own district worse than he has previously had, and expect him to accept the offer, or if he does not accept it, be put off benefit.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There is only a shade of difference between the two provisions, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of his own Act, he will see these words which I have already quoted:
which he might reasonably have expected to obtain.
Those words are, by the right hon Gentleman's Act, inserted in the Subsection which he has been quoting, and, therefore, the Sub-section which he has been quoting includes the words which I have quoted, because they have been inserted in it by a subsequent Act.

Mr. SHAW: I cannot accept that at all. It makes this difference, that under Section 7 of the principal Act you cannot ask a skilled engineer in his own district to go and do the work of a general labourer, and insist that he shall do it if the general labourer's trade union rate of wages is paid. Under this arrangement you can. Under the principal Act you could not say to a skilled engineer, "You must accept a position as a road sweeper at the trade union rate of wages for that job, and, if you do mot accept it, you will be deemed not to have
fulfilled a statutory condition." You cannot do that under the principal Act, which you are going to amend, but you can do it if you have this Amendment, because, provided that the offer of employment is mot in his usual occupation, a man has mo right to refuse the work of a road sweeper if it is offered at trade union wages. I will read to the Minister Section 7 of the principal Act as it will be amended according to his proposal. It says that a man may refuse:
an offer of employment in his usual occupation in the district where he was last ordinarily employed, at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he habitually obtained in his usual occupation in that district or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed.
He could refuse a less wage in his own employment, but he can refuse nothing now if it be at the trade union rate of wages. My submission to the Committee is that, under the Section as it will be amended, you can take the finest skilled engineer and can say to him, "Unless you accept the position of street sweeper at trade union wages, you have not fulfilled a statutory condition." I venture to submit that if I am right—

Mr. DIXEY: Is not that the same difficulty?

Mr. SHAW: If the hon. Member will permit me, I think I had better deal with the Minister, who, I think knows rather more about it. I want to suggest to the Minister that this is a point of some substance. If I am right, it is a very serious thing that he is doing to the unemployed skilled workman, because the skilled workman is like the professional man. He has his own professional pride just as the professional man has, and a skilled engineer would no more like to go as a general labourer than a sculptor would like to work as a stonemason. It is not that I think a general labourer is doing less useful work, but I think that this fine craft pride ought to be maintained, not at the expense of the general labourer, but because craft in itself is a fine thing to have. The Minister really has a case to answer here and if he will read the Section of the principal Act with his Amendment he will find that a man now in his own district has no guarantee whatever. Provided you offer him trade union wages you can offer him any job you like, whatever his normal occupation.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The position is not quite as the right hon. Gentleman has put it. In regard to the skilled engineer he has not put the present position of the law quite plainly. Under the present law if you get a skilled engineer on standard benefit, say at Woolwich, and he is at any time asked to take, while on standard benefit, a position as a road sweeper at oWoolwich, he has got to get the same rate of wage as a skilled engineer. That is under paragraph (b). On the other hand, if he is asked to take a job as a road sweeper in another district he has to take the rate for the job at the present moment. So, qua skilled engineer, the protection at present is not what the right hon. Gentleman thinks. Under the Bill he will have to take the rate for the job.

Mr. SHAW: In his own district.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If it is another district he has to take the rate for the job now. He is only protected in his own district by the engineers' rate, and only for standard benefit. The moment he gets on to extended benefit at present he has to take what may be reasonable, and that whether in his own district or any other. Under the new proposal, if he is asked to go to a new job he may have to take the rate for the job, but at the same time he cannot be asked to go until after a reasonable time. If he goes to a new job he gets the rate for the new job, and he cannot be asked to take what he can be asked to take at present under extended benefit; also, he is protected because he cannot be asked to go until after a reasonable time. The Court of Referees are a law to themselves, and they will be independent of any interference by the Minister.

Mr. MacLAREN: Is no instruction laid down for the guidance of the chairman?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No. They have the instructions that are given in the Bill, but there is no administrative instruction. They are independent authorities. If I were ever put in the position of chairman of the Court of Referees, or Umpire, it would seem to me reasonable to have regard to the position of the man and his history. If it were a case of a change of occupation which was not a great change, I should be prepared to say, "Go to your other
job sooner. "If it were the case of a skilled man, it would be a long time before I should say," It is reasonable to ask you to take an unskilled job." That is the protection he gets, and that is my reason for very genuinely saying that under a dual system of standard and extended benefit the case of a skilled workman is better under our proposal than it has been under the existing law.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. SHAW: The Minister still, I think, has either failed to grasp my point or I have failed to understand him. This Bill makes benefit now a statutory right under certain conditions, and unless you comply with those conditions you have no statutory right. This Clause, if it is passed, will put the workman in the position that at any time he claims benefit, if he does not take a job outside his ordinary occupation, whatever the job may be, at trade union rates, it is within the province of the insurance officer to refuse to pay any benefit. Is that a fair rendering of the law?s I will pass the right hon. Gentleman the Clause as it is now amended and I suggest it shows that if a skilled engineer claims benefit and there is a job of road sweeping at trade union rates it is within the power of the insurance officer to tell him to take the job or to refuale him benefit.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer is "No." The body we are dealing with is the Court of Referees, which must be guided by the actual words, and the words are that, after the lapse of such an interval from the date on which the insured contributor becomes unemployed as in the circumstances of the case is reasonable, the employment shall not be deemed to be unsuitable by reason only that it is employment of a kind other than the usual occupation of the insured contributor. Then he gets the protection of the wage of the job by the words
if it is employment at a rate of wages not lower, and on conditions not less favourable, than those generally observed by associations of employers and employes.

Mr. SHAW: If an engineer claims benefit under the circumstances I have described, can the insurance officer give instructions that no benefit shall be paid on the ground that the statutory conditions are not complied with and the man has to go to his appeal without any benefit being paid to him?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: It is not a question of appeal. The first court he goes to is the Court of Referees. Let me 'be quite accurate. I am carrying most of these details in my head. I am not quite sure whether action can be taken by an insurance officer.

Mr. SHAW: It is taken to-day.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No, it is not to-day. To-day there is, so to speak, a three-decker system, (1) the insurance officer who gives a decision, (2) the court of referees, to whom an appeal is taken, and (3) the umpire, to whom a second appeal can be taken. In the new system the first court is a court of referees; but it is not always to be a court of appeal.

Mr. SHAW: We must get to the bottom of this. My submission is, that if a man makes a claim for benefit—an unemployed engineer—it is within the power of the officers of the Ministry to refuse to pay him, and if his case be submitted to the court of referees, it is not submitted on a case of equity, but on a case of a statutory condition. He has no statutory guarantee that if the trade union wages are paid he can insist on the conditions applying to his own job.

Mr. HAYDAY: I feel that the complications that have been introduced will make for greater confusion in the discussion of these points. First of all, let me say, the evidence that was submitted, and the quotations that have been given by the Minister of Labour, are absolutely correct. But he must appreciate the whole of that cross-questioning, for, indeed, it started around the position of a young engineer. He was asked whether a young engineer should go on for all time refusing employment. We then developed into a form of general occupation, say, for instance, the general labourer who is used to the same kind of tools—the pick and the shovel. The question was whether he, acting as a builder's labourer, could continue to say that his job was that of a builder's labourer and refuse any reasonable request to go on to a road-making job or any other general work of that sort. Even applied to the young engineer, my answer was then, as it would be now, that if the request was reasonable, if the circumstances were reasonable and the employment was suited to the capacity of the individual, it could not be refused for all time. The
question of reasonableness is covered, I suppose, by the stipulation that you cannot send a man out of his district. It would be unreasonable to do so if he had other persons dependent upon him-So we must approach this as though it were a general sweeping condition of affairs, that whatever may in the main, be looked upon as reasonable by one person is of necessity reasonable in the full sense of justice or equity.
This particular alteration, innocent though the words appear to be, must be read in conjunction with paragraph (c) of the original Act. In the present circumstances there may not be an overwhelming importance to be attached to the alteration in the words, except that they leave it open for a person at any time to be sent to some other form of occupation than that which he usually follows, without his being able to protect his rights to benefit as an insured person. As we shall be permitted to discuss the effect of those words in relation to the Bill as it would subsequently appear if the full alteration were carried, I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman, that the alteration in his Bill to be made after paragraph (b) of Section 7 of the original Act creates quite a revolution in the present circumstances as they apply to an insured person. Will Members please follow how that small Section reads now and how it will read if these words are inserted? It says:
An offer of employment in any other district at a rate of wages lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those generally observed in that district by agreement between associations of employers and employés shall, failing any such agreement, than those generally recognised in that district by good employers.
That is how it appears without, the suggested introduction of words. You propose to introduce the words "in his usual occupation." Whatever the intention of the Minister and his Department may be, the English reading of the Clause as it will appear with those words in is a far different thing, for it reads that a person shall not be deemed to have failed to have fulfilled the statutory conditions by reason only that he has declined an offer of employment in his usual occupation in any other district at a rate of wages lower, and so on. The alteration is the insertion of the words "his usual occupation" after the word
"employment." That means that the insured person will not fail to fulfil a statutory condition of he refuses employment in any other district in his usual occupation at rates less, but—and that is the point—he cannot refuse work in any occupation other than his own at rates of wages less than the trade union rate. That is the kernel of the whole thing in that respect, and the Minister agrees that that is so. That is the very serious difference if these simple words are introduced into this Sub-section, and eventually find themselves embodied in another Act of Parliament. For the first time it will say, "We no longer give you protection outside your own immediate occupations." I trust I shall be permitted to mention one matter in the Blanesburgh Report, which I feel must have prompted the Department to cull those words in order to amend that Section of the principal Act.
It is said sometimes that we protest against things being taken from the Report and that we protest when some things are not taken from the Report. If the complete thing had been taken we perhaps would still have been called upon to oppose the Bill, but our opposition would have lost a considerable amount of its sting had the Government selected the best and not the worst from the Report. We are suspicious, and one is justified in being suspicious when we are presented with a Bill which so confuses the lay mind by its cross references to other Acts. It does not state what the Acts are, but we have to read the Amendments of the principal Act in conjunction with something that was done in connection with the Act of 1924, which inserted something else in the original Act, and about which nothing whatever is said in the present Bill. [Laughter.] Hon. Members are amused. They will appreciate now how clearly the whole position is and how nicely in a garment of silk or soft material you can enshroud very reactionary proposals, whilst making them appear to be pleasant by the introduction of softer tenms like" occupation "instead of" employment."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I correct the hon. Member? I hate to take up the time of the Committee by interruptions, but this is the last time— [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—at any rate, on this question I hope. I do not want
the hon. Member to remain under a misconception. As to the offer of employment, in paragraph (b) we insert the words, "In his usual occupation." In other words, he is safeguarded under that paragraph by our Bill for all time as to the reasonableness of the offer "in his usual occupation." Now comes the question of another occupation. He is safeguarded for all time as to the reasonableness of an offer in another occupation by the words of Sub-section (2) (ii). Therefore, he is protected whether in his own occupation or in another. In this respect he is much better off than he was before, because before, as soon as he went from standard to extended benefit, his protection lapsed.
May I make another point clear with regard to what I said previously, in which I may have misled the hon. Member? The two-decker system as regards the Court of Referees and the Umpire is true with regard ta the regular three-monthly review. Otherwise a case goes in the first instance to the insurance officer, and I submit to the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shaw) that no insurance officer, knowing that he may be appealed against, is going quite glibly to disregard the guiding words of the Act in Subsection (2).

Mr. SHAW: May I point out to the Minister—

The CHAIRMAN: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) is in possession.

Mr. HAYDAY: The right hon. Gentleman has not made the point clear. I suggest that the words have a restricting and not an expanding influence in the man's favour. It is not our fault if we are told that something at present running requires no alteration, but that something in the principal Act of 1920 does require alteration. If the words are to be inserted in the principal Act, which is the guiding Act upon which all the following Acts have been built, where is the need to introduce the words "in his usual occupation," if it is not intended to restrict the protection he gets to his occupation, because without these words he is protected in whatever occupation he may go to out of his own district.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: For standard benefit only.

Mr. HAYDAY: Are we not dealing with the 30-stamp qualification and not with extended benefit? The Bill presented now does not alter the conditions of extended benefit; it is to establish the right to benefit without any discretion of the Minister, and without extended benefit. We have to read these words not in association to what may apply under extended benefit but how they will apply when there is no extended benefit. If it gives the man protection at the moment under standard benefit rights why not continue the protection to other benefits under this Bill? The Minister is really confusing the issue by saying that he is improving the conditions under which extended benefit might be given, and in telescoping the two he is working on the spirit of compromise. He does not like to let go too much of the restrictions he has under extended benefit. We want the full protection given under standard benefit to be given to extended benefit. If these words remain in the Bill they will restrict the protection given so far as the trade union rate of wages is concerned. I ought to submit a point of Order to you as to whether a Bill promoting legislation dealing with a statutory right and the abolition of extended benefit is in order in dealing with a condition under the extended benefit system?

The CHAIRMAN: That is an objection which should have been taken before Mr. Speaker on the Second Reading.

Mr. HAYDAY: I feel that these words have been prompted by a phrase found in the Blanesburgh Committee's Report, which I want to read because it is an answer to the whole of this matter.
Some of us have been impressed by the difficulty which certain growing industries experience in meeting their labour requirements, even though there are unemployed men in other industries where their services are not likely again to be required, at any rate for a considerable time. Employers in the expanding industries, or portions of an industry, are anxious for larger numbers of skilled men and would readily employ workers from other trades, even though their experience is confined to their previous work. Where, however, they are not possessed of the requisite experience to make their work at once of adequate value, employers have difficulty in paying immediately to these men wages at the full standard rates. What is desired is that such men should be willing and should be permitted to work for a few months at a wage somewhat less than the standard rate
in the assurance that by the end of that time they will become sufficiently experienced to be worth the full wage.
That is an expression of opinion, not a unanimous opinion; it is not a recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee. But the insertion of these words will have just that effect. They will protect the man if he goes to his own occupation anywhere, he will get the trade union rate of wages; but if he is sent to some outside employment he does not get that protection. Consequently, he will become capable of supplying labour for expanding industries at less than the trade union rates. That is our fear. If that be so, what is the use of our talking about peace in industry when an Unemployment Insurance Act allows the use of an unemployed person for the supply of labour at less than the established trade union rates? You withdraw the protection from him because that does not happen to be his own occupation. I have read and re-read the first Sub-section, and I have tried to believe that the words were there innocently. I have read them as applying in a more restricted sense, but I have found that, although you started off on the journey easily, it was misleading, and that you got such an awful bump as you got lower down. So the soft words, seeming to lack a sting in their meaning at the first, end with a great sting, and to my mind they certainly do restrict the protection that an unemployed person has a right to expect under the Bill.

Mr. DIXEY: I am in a somewhat difficult position, because I find that a certain portion of what the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw) said seems to be borne out by my own construction of the amended Sub-section. It seems to me that under Section 7 of the old Act, if we insert the words in proviso (b) after "an offer of employment," and add the words "in his usual occupation," that rather carries out the contention of the right hon. Member for Preston and would open a big field as against the unemployed men in relation to some other occupation in his own district. Although I personally am not in favour of omitting paragraph (b) entirely from the Bill, yet an Amendment might be made that in proviso (c) of the Clause the words should be inserted, but that in paragraph (b) of Section V of the old Act the words should be omitted. As far as I can see the whole trouble is as to
the interpretation put on the words "in Ms usual occupation," and reading it as I do, in Section 7 of tie old Act, as amended by paragraph (b)of Clause 5, it would rather limit the original intention of the man's particular district, limit it to the wages in his usual occupation. That being so, and if that be the intention of the Government, I would be glad to have some information on the subject. Is it the intention of the Government that the old paragraph (b) of Section 7 should be entirely altered in its interpretation? If so we might have that intention made clear.
I do not say that the unemployed man is going to suffer any hardship. Comparisons have been made between skilled engineers and crossing sweepers, and in many cases at the present time the skilled engineer who gets a crossing sweeper's job probably gets a jolly sight better job. It seems to me the case could be met if Sub-section (1, b) of this Clause simply read:
In proviso (c) of Sub-section (1) after the words, 'An offer of employment' there shall be inserted the words ' in his usual occupation,' and for the words ' usual employment ' in the said proviso (b) there shall be substituted the words ' usual occupation.'

Mr. POTTS: I hope the Minister will:now withdraw the Clause, but if he will not do so, I wish to be assured as to its effect on certain industries. It is all right to take employment where people are paid a standard wage, but it is another proposition where you have men employed on piece-work, especially in coal mining. I want the right hon. Gentleman to realise that we have in the mining industry, in round figures, one million workpeople, a figure which is less than it ought to be, and out of these 25 per cent. work on the surface and, of the remainder, between 50 and 60 percent, are engaged at the coal face on piece-work. I want the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. L. Thompson) to understand that there is no comparison in this matter as between Durham and Yorkshire or Lancashire. In Durham the person who does the piece-work part of the business is engaged for that particular work and no other. The man who is engaged for coal-getting pure and simple is working at the face and is doing nothing else. Let me say in the first place that we have "to consider the Mines Act in conjunction
with this legislation and the Mines Act says that whatever an individual is instructed to do in a coal mine it is an offence against the law to disobey the order. In the case of mining, then what is meant by "usual occupation "? In mining it will mean anything that the man is intended to do. If he is working at the face, or if he is "tramming" that will be deemed to be his occupation. The man has to do anything he is wanted to do. The Mines Act says he must.
If this Clause is passed the net result will be that thousands of people in the mining industry can be unemployed and yet never receive a penny of insurance benefit—while they are also liable to be prosecuted for disobeying orders. In the case of Yorkshire we find there are two people working together at the coal face. One is deemed to be the collier and the other may be styled an assistant collier. They are working on piecework. I have gone into colliery offices as a miners' agent and I have had to deal with hundreds of cases of victimisation and that is the power you are putting into the owners hands. There is no use winking at it. They can stop thousands of people from getting any payment. Take the case of two men working together in the way I have described. The manager may decide to stop their working place. He may have a prejudice against the man at the coal face and he may want to get rid of that man and this provision will play into his hands. He stops his working place. The man is sent the following day or some days later on to tramming instead of coal getting. He may be between 40 and 50 years of age, yet he is told to go and tram tubs, and in some places even in Yorkshire, especially in West Yorkshire, people are tramming tubs hundreds of yards, and the tunnel is not more than a yard high in some places. Imagine a man between 40 and 50 years of age tramming in a tunnel not exceeding a yard high, which is common in West Yorkshire. The man cannot do it. If he is told by the colliery manager to do that tramming, the manager is acting within his rights, and if the man refuses, he can prosecute him for not doing it. If he says, "I cannot do it," and he goes out of the pit, he has stopped work on his own account, and he cannot get insurance benefit.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not quite follow how the argument of the hon. Member affects the difference between the provision as it is now in the 1920 Act and as it is proposed in this Bill.

Mr. POTTS: There is a great deal in a man understanding the methods of carrying out the work, and you, Mr. Hope, do not. Excuse me saying so, but you do not.

The CHAIRMAN: There is another thing I cannot understand, and that is the connection of the hon. Member's argument with the words of the Amendment.

Mr. POTTS: The man is a coal getter at the coal face, and if the management send him away from there to tram tubs, which is something it is impossible for him to do, that is not his usual occupation. There is the answer at once. You take an individual, and he is stopped in the way that I have shown—and we shall get thousands of these cases if this passes—the man will not be entitled to insurance benefit. If he goes to the guardians, this is what happens; and I know, because I have been a chairman of guardians. When he makes application to the relieving officer, that official makes all the inquiries he can. He writes to the colliery and gets a letter from the manager to lay before the committee when they meet. What happens? It is shown that the man has left his work and not been discharged, that he has had work offered him but has left it because he refused to accept the work which he could not do. Consequently, in law he is not entitled to any poor relief. That is the defect of this Clause. That is how it will work out, and the Minister can take it from me as a matter of fact—I challenge him to go into it with me, if he likes—that the colliery managers do discharge men to get rid of them indirectly in that way.

The CHAIRMAN: This appears to be a case under the present law as it is set out in Section 7 of the principal Act. I cannot see from the hon. Member's argument that the suggested change in this Bill will make any difference.

Mr. T. SHAW: On a point of Order. May I submit, with all due respect, that that is exactly our claim, that under Section 7 of the principal Act a man is
not penalised for refusing an offer of employment at less wages or under worse conditions than his own occupation, but that under this proposed Clause, provided the trade union rate of wages be paid, he can be refused benefit if he refuses to accept the situation, whatever the situation is?
That is exactly our point.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Potts) appears to be denouncing a state of things which arises under the present law, and he wants an entirely different Amendment from this one.

Mr. SHAW: It is not my desire in any way to question your ruling, but I do seriously suggest that, as the law now stands with regard to unemployment insurance, a man is not penalised for refusing to accept employment that is not in his trade and under conditions worse than his trade, and the hon. Member is pointing out that if this Clause be accepted he can be penalised for refusing to do the things for which, if he refuses to do them now, he is not penalised.

The CHAIRMAN: If that be the hon. Member's argument, it is in order, but I thought he was denouncing a state of things under the present law.

Mr. POTTS: I am only trying to show what the effect will be of the man being offered work different from the work ac which he is commonly employed, and I am trying to show the effect this Clause will have. It is no use talking about employers not doing it. I can give you a case now, and I am going to ask the Minister to inquire into it, where one of our own colliery men was victimised by a colliery company because he was too intelligent to work there and they discharged him. It has happened in hundreds of cases, and, if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, we shall have any amount of trouble in the mining industry. It will apply in Yorkshire on general lines where employers will take advantage of a man and try to get him out of a colliery. It will apply also in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, and that is sufficient to cause the Minister to take note of how these words will apply. Therefore, I suggest that he should reconsider this matter, and, if he
wants to put anything in this Clause, let him put into it, instead of the words "in his usual occupation," the words "in his usual working place." That will meet our requirements and stop people being victimised, and a man will go to the place he is engaged to work in instead of being set at some other kind of work.

Mr. ATKINSON: I do not blame anybody for not appreciating the effect of these Clauses, and I certainly should not blame myself if I failed to understand them. On the other hand, it is not wise to exaggerate the change that is made. As I understand it, the position is this— taking as an illustration the case given by the right hon. Member for Preston (Mr. T. Shaw), that is, the case of an engineer who has been making £3 a week and has been offered work as a labourer at £2 a week. At present he can refuse that offer, if it is within his own district, for a period co-extensive with his standard benefit, a period which is limited by the one in six rule or the 26 weeks' rule. Under this Bill he can equally refuse it for such a period of time as the Court of Referees thinks reasonable. It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. I feel sure I am right. If one looks at paragraph (ii) of Subsection (2) we see that he has a right to refuse work in any other employment for such an interval of time
as, in the circumstances of the case, is reasonable.
In other words we are substituting "a reasonable period" for a period equivalent to that during which a man is entitled to his standard benefit. The reasonable period may be less or it may be more. Then take the case of a man offered this work in another district. At present, under the main Act, he cannot refuse it for a day—assuming that the £2 is the standard rate of pay for labourers. Under the Bill we are discussing he is again entitled to refuse that work for a reasonable period. Therefore, as regards work outside the district, his position is clearly much better than it is under the present law. At present he is bound to take the work the moment it is offered to him, he cannot refuse it for a day, but under this Bill he has the benefit of a reasonable period during which he can refuse that work. I have tried my best to understand this Section, and though I
may be wrong I feel pretty sure that what I have said is the effect of the new Bill. [Interruption.] With an appeal to the umpire. As to his own district, he at present has a statutory right which lasts throughout the period during which he is entitled to standard benefit. Once that period is at an end he has no right. Under this Bill is substituted a period which, I agree, is of uncertain duration, but a period decided by the court of referees to be reasonable in all the circumstances. That seems to me the contrast between the two positions, and I suggest that it is very easy to exaggerate it. It certainly is not a change that calls for extravagant language or abuse, because it may be to the benefit of the man even with regard to work offered to him in his own district, and, as regards work from another district, his position is much improved, because, as the Act stands to-day, he has no protection, but under the Bill he has very considerable protection.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Committee is not at all clear on this point. The hon. and learned Gentleman has helped us a bit, but he has helped to raise what is the real difficulty. At the present time, the kind of job offered to an applicant really depends on whether he is receiving standard or extended benefit. Under this Bill, there is only to be one kind of benefit. As the law stands at present, a man receiving statutory benefit has certain definite rights to refuse to take a job under conditions laid down in the Act of 1920.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: After a reasonable time even the statutory benefit can be brought to an end. That is the effect of the provisions of the Act of 1924. He cannot have it altogether, even throughout the statutory benefit.

Mr. GREENWOOD: What the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do in his Bill is to make a compromise between the conditions applicable to standard and to extended benefit. In doing so, he has not made the conditions easier but more onerous. As it stands at present, a man who is a skilled workman would be quite entitled to refuse in his own district any job offered him on terms inferior to those he enjoyed in his own job. You can say that that is for a limited period, but that is not my point. The point is that under this Bill he can no longer do even that.
There is no guarantee that that opportunity is to he given to him even for a limited period. The safeguard that in his own district be can refuse to accept a job in a different occupation on inferior terms to those he now enjoys is to be taken away from him. If that be so, then clearly the Bill is not in any way to the advantage of the insured person; on the contrary, it is to his disadvantage. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to answer a question. Is it not the case that at present the insured worker is justified in refusing an alternative job on conditions inferior to those he enjoyed in his own occupation and that under this Bill he may be compelled on pain of losing his benefit to accept a job which offers inferior wages and inferior conditions? That is the real point at issue, and it does not seem to he any good to cloud it with terms like "reasonable time" or "limited period." As the Act stands to-day, the workman can refuse a job under certain circumstances, but under this Bill he would be disqualified for rejecting a similar job. That is the point which the Minister of Labour put earlier in the Debate. If the right hon. Gentleman will tell the Committee whether I am right or not in my interpretation of what he says, then we shall know where we are in regard to this proposal to delete the paragraph which we are now considering.

Mr. R. HUDSON: We started the discussion upon this Amendment with a complicated reading of the result of the new wording of the old Clause as modified by a previous Act. It seems to me that we should have done much better if, first of all, the Committee had made up its mind before dealing with the wording what it really wanted to obtain. I suggest that the real problem of the Committee, before it tackles the wording, is to find out whether a man who is unemployed is to be compelled either to accept work at other work or at the same rates that he has been getting; or whether he is to be compelled to accept other work at a less rate of pay. I confess, after listening carefully to the Debate, that I cannot understand which of these alternatives the Minister of Labour has proposed. After all, this is a very reasonable request. The first thing is that the Minister should tell us what he wishes to do under the new scheme. The present practice has nothing to do with the point.
We are dealing with the future and not with the past. Let us get to know clearly whether the Minister wishes in future a man who is unemployed to accept work at the same rate after a reasonable period, or can he accept less wages? When the Committee has made up its mind on that point, then we can discuss whether the wording is the right wording to achieve that end.

Mr. YOUNG: Reference has been made in this Debate to the skilled engineer. A skilled engineer who is unemployed in his own district is not bound to take a job at engineering under the engineering rate, and, if in the same district, the engineer is not bound to take a job in any other occupation under the engineering rate. The proposal before the Committee means that an engineer in his own district, while not called upon to take a job in his own trade at lower rates, may be called upon to take a job in another trade at less rates than he has been previously receiving. I hope the Minister of Labour will give some further explanation as to what can be done under this Bill. I know of many examples of what can be done under the present law. A skilled engineer in my own trade union who was out of employment was kept off the unemployment roll by the offer of a job at rates below those of his own trade union. That man, a skilled engineer, would be ordinarily employed in working to a thousandth part of an inch, and this job, if he undertook it, would destroy his skill for all time, and consequently, he would be of little use in the occupation in which he has been before.
11.0 p.m.
My second case is one of a kind which may occur under the conditions now to be imposed. Another skilled engineer, out of work, and the committee, desiring to get him off the Employment Exchange, offered him a job as a scavenger. I am one of those who do not, at any rate, think that a scavenger's job is one of which any man need be ashamed, but there is something in offering to a skilled engineer a job as a scavenger, when there are many more men who come nearer to that kind of occupation. Consequently, I want to know from the Minister, in connection with this matter, if there is going to be an insistence on
men accepting a wage lower than their own wage at some other occupation than their own, if any definite decision is going to be laid down whereby the insurance officer will not in the first instance deprive the man of benefit until some reference has been made to the Court of Referees at least. If that is not done, I can see the insurance officer taking the opportunity of getting as many men off his books as he possibly can, and, under the conditions I have explained, it seems to me decidedly unfair to call upon a skilled engineer to take up a job, say, at labouring, at a low rate of wages, simply because the insurance officer says there is a job for him. I trust that in these circumstances the Minister will tell us something as to what is reasonable, and who is to decide the interval which is referred to in this Bill.

Mr. KELLY: I think that, if we could only have another speech or two from some of the lawyers in the Committee, we should find things even more complicated. The hon. and learned Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) told us how these new words suggested by the Minister would improve the Bill, and would give a standing to, say, the skilled engineer who has just been spoken of, and make him much safer than he is at the present time. I am amazed, because the Act as it reads at this moment states that a man may refuse:
an offer of employment in the district where he was last ordinarily employed, at a rate of wage lower, or on conditions less favourable, than those which he might reasonably have expected to obtain, having regard to those which he habitually obtained in his usual employment in that district, or would have obtained had he continued to be so employed.
I would like the Minister to say how that paragraph will be improved for the insured person by-adding the words "in his usual occupation." Surely, an offer of employment in the district covers this more than the words "his usual occupation," and it is very evident that the suggestion to introduce those words into the Bill would not only restrict, but is one of those measures that are making this Bill into the vicious thing that we have stated it to be throughout the whole of the discussion.
Taking, again, paragraph (c), to which the hon. and learned Member for Altrinc-
ham referred, at the present time, if a man is offered employment in another district at a rate of wage lower than that usually observed in the district, he is entitled to refuse that employment. I cannot understand the reasons of the hon. and learned Member for stating that, by adding the words "in his usual occupation" after the word "employment," and then, instead of using the word "employment," using the word "occupation" in another part of the paragraph, is going to improve the conditions for the man. It means a worsening of the conditions. As the Act stands at present, you could not take an engineer to another district and offer him less wages than the wages operating in that particular district, and you could not take an engineer to another district and offer him work at any occupation or calling at wages or on conditions less favourable than those operating in the district as agreed upon by good employers or by federations of employers.
The only intent of the use of these words is to be able to send men away from their own district into occupations where they will be compelled to work at wages much less than those to which they have been accustomed to. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where other men are unemployed!"] Imagine the case which the last speaker quoted of engineers who are offered employment as navvies at a time when you have plenty of men who follow that occupation and are ready to undertake the work. We have found many times officers of the Ministry offering work in the same district and other districts with a view to clearing people off the pay roll, and if they now have the opportunity given by these new words we are going to have a position even worse. I hope that this proviso will be deleted, as it is most unfair to those who are unemployed, and we have no right to put them in the position of being forced into occupations under conditions that are not fair and just.

Mr. VIANT: I want to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend. The Parliamentary Secretary to-day used the illustration of a woodworker engaged part of the time in the shipbuilding industry and part in the building industry. Under existing conditions, a joiner engaged in house-building receives wages much in advance of those enjoyed in the shipbuilding industry. In many cases, there is as much difference as 15s
or 20s. a week. Under the present Act, a man has the right to refuse to take employment in the shipbuilding industry even here in London. He may be perfectly qualified to take joinery work upon a ship, but he is entitled to refuse to take it by virtue of the fact that there is so much difference between the wages. Furthermore, he has the right to refuse to be transferred from one industry to the other by virtue of the fact that there is so much difference in the wages which he would receive. Rightly or wrongly, we are reading into the Amendment suggested by the new Bill that he would be compelled to be drafted from one industry to another, even although the wages are going to be so much reduced. His refusal to be transferred would mean the forfeiture of his unemployment pay. That is, I think, a concrete illustration of the reasons why we are so dubious about accepting the new proposals in the present Bill. I would suggest that even the Parliamentary Secretary might be prepared, if our interpretation is not correct, to put forward reasons as to why our interpretation is incorrect in order to remove, what I consider to be, the legitimate opposition from these benches to the proposals advanced in the new Bill. They are concrete, legitimate objections, and up till now a case has not been made out by giving a practical illustration of the new proposals in the Bill which is before the Committee.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like the Committee to realise what we are discussing here. We are discussing our own flesh and blood, who, unfortunately, happen to be unemployed. It is not an army of criminals with whom we are dealing. We are dealing with men and women. As my trade—the engineers— has been largely flung across the floor to-night, I would like to tell the Committee that the officials of our organisation who have the working of these Acts are very perplexed about the alterations that are to take place in the new Bill. We fear that the engineer who is offered a job at what is commonly called labouring work and does not accept it will be cut off. In my constituency the position is even "finer" than that, because we have a large number—thousands of them —of what are called semi-skilled men.
The highly-skilled engineer fears that when he is unemployed he may be sent to Singers' factory to take a semiskilled job and receive the semi-skilled pay. How does that operate? I would like the Committee to watch what is going to happen there.
It means that the semi-skilled man is going to be displaced by the skilled man. It means that this Government are, in this Bill, once again following out their usual course of procedure which they have put into operation ever since they took the reins of government, and that is to lower the standard of life of the working classes. That is what is behind this legislation. It is all very well for the Minister of Labour to make fine points of debate which do not mean one damn—how do you like that word, Mr. Hope?—to the men who are going to be affected. Those men are watching what is happening here. One would not think from the way we are discussing to-night that the fate of tens of thousands of men is depending upon what we do. Their fate, their happiness, depends upon this business. We in this House will not be affected by a shilling or two. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shall we not?"] Well, not on the average. The poorest of us can afford a shilling or two, but these men have nothing. You have divorced them from the soil—

The CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Member come back to the words "in his usual occupation"? Mr. Riley.

Mr. RILEY: I—

Mr. KIRKWOOD rose—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) sat down, and I have called upon the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley).

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I gave way, because I thought you had a point of order to raise. [Laughter.] I do not know why there is so much hilarity about this business.

The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs assures me that he only gave way because he thought I was going to say something further, and the hon. Member for Dewsbury is willing to give way in turn, I will allow the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs to proceed.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The engineer has been trailed across the floor of the House to-night and well he might be, because he is going to be affected very much. In the Amendment we have moved, we are trying to safeguard what is commonly called the skilled man—the miner —because the miner is a highly skilled man-—the joiner, the ship joiner and the house joiner, and the skilled men in different trades. We are trying to safeguard them here. The Minister of Labour by this method of procedure is trying to lower the standard of life of the skilled workmen of this country. This is the thanks that the engineer is getting from the ruling classes. During the War, when you were up against it, you appealed to the engineers to slacken their trade rights. I advised them not to do so, because those rights were ours to defend.

The CHAIRMAN: This cannot arise on the present Amendment, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I consider it does, but I bow to your ruling. I have no desire to fall foul of you to-night, but I have sat out these Debates for the last two days listening patiently to innumerable speeches, and whenever I rise to my feet, and bring the Debate right down to earth, you, Mr. Hope, rise in your place, and tell me it has nothing to do with the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: I have also listened, like the hon. Member, to innumerable speeches, and I have the greatest sympathy with the hon. Member. When I tell him it has nothing to do with the subject under discussion, it is only because it is the fact.

Mr. T. SHAW: I think we have a right to ask for a plain answer from the right hon. Gentleman to a plain question. Is it the fact, if these words are added to the original Act, that it will be possible for an insurance officer to tell a skilled workman who applies for benefit, that if he does not take a job in another occupation at less wages, although they are the trade union wages in that trade, he is not entitled to benefit, and that the man goes to the court of referees without any statutory right at all to refuse a job outside his own occupation? That is a plain question, and the right hon.
Gentleman should face it plainly. There is no doubt that if these words are accepted the only, protection he has is that he may refuse a job in his own occupation at less than trade union rates, but he cannot refuse any other job with a statutory protection, notwithstanding what is said in Sub-section 2. He may go before the court of referees and claim that he has not had a reasonable interval, but that "reasonable interval" in that Sub-section is not for the protection of the man but for the protection of the Minister. Let me read it:
after the lapse of such an interval from the date on which an insured contributor becomes unemployed as, in the circumstances of the case, is reasonable, employment shall not be deemed to be unsuitable by reason only that it is employment of a kind other than employment in the usual occupation of the insured contributor.
The original Act gave protection to the man. It gave him the right to say that in his own district that it should not be considered a breach of the statutory Regulations if he refused a job on worse conditions than his own. That is taken away and now the insurance officer will be able to say, as soon as an application is made by an inquirer or any skilled worker, that he must take the job or lose his benefit. If the insurance officer can say, "There is a job, and you must take that job or we refuse you benefit," the man has to go to the Court of Referees without any statutory protection at all against accepting the job. That will be so if this Bill becomes the law of the land. At present, under the principal Act, that cannot be done. The Minister ought to say plainly whether what I have stated is the case?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will answer at once. The man has a statutory right. We cannot ask him to take a job in another trade until a reasonable period has passed.

Mr. RILEY: I have not been responsible for making any of the innumerable speeches referred to, but I want now to put a pointed question to the Minister. In one of his earlier speeches, the Minister put up the defence that none of the Unemployment Insurance Acts hitherto passed gave an opportunity to refuse offers of employment with impunity. Whatever other protection the existing Act has been supposed to give to the insured person, one of its protections has
been the right of the insured person to have the standard rate of wages as a condition of employment, without forfeiting his right to insurance benefit. That condition has been accepted as a definite policy, I think, in every Unemployment Insurance Act that has been passed. It has not been questioned to-night that that is provided for in Section 7 of the existing Act. Section 7 consists of two parts, and the pith of it is as follows: First, that where an insured person is out of employment, he is entitled, in his district, if he accepts employment, to have the wages to which he has been habitually accustomed, whether it be in his own occupation or in some other occupation in his own district.
The second provision is that if he goes out of the district to seek employment, or if employment is offered out of his district, Section 7 secures that he shall be entitled, not necessarily to the wages he has been accustomed to habitually, but to the standard rates and conditions obtaining in that district for the work he does. This proposal is going to alter that con-

dition. The interpolation of the words "usual occupation" is clearly intended to rule out the protection hitherto given to the man who has to accept work which is not his usual occupation. To that extent his position is worsened. I do not want to use a harsh term but if those words are accepted, the effect will be to put pressure upon people going outside their districts, to act as blacklegs against trade union rates of wages. It is a direct incentive. In order to retain the right to benefit men may have to become blacklegs against their own fellow-workers—even men who have been lifelong members of trade unions. It is not a fair proposition and is a distinct departure from the policy hitherto pursued in the Insurance Acts.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 115.

Division No. 403.]
AYES.
[11.32 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fraser, Captain Ian


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Chapman, Sir S.
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.


Albery, Irving James
Christie, J. A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ganzonl, Sir John


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Clayton, G. C.
Gates, Percy


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Glbbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Atkinson, C.
Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Goft, Sir Part


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Gower, Sir Robert


Bainlel, Lord
Colman, N. C. D.
Grace, John


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland N.)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cooper, A. Duff
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cope. Major William
Grotrian, H. Brent


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Couper, J. B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hammersley, S. S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hanbury, C.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Harland, A.


Blundell, F. N.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harrison, G. J. C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Crolt
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hartington, Marquess of


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Dixey, A. C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Drewe, C.
Haslam, Henry C.


Briggs, J. Harold
Duckworth, John
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Henderson, Capt. R.R. (Oxf'd, Henley)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Henderson, Lt.-Col. Sir V. L. (Bootle)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham)
Ellis, R. G.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
England, Colonel A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. H. J.


Burman, J. B.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Hills, Major John Walter


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hilton, Cecil


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Holt, Captain H. P.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Fermoy, Lord
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Campbell, E. T.
Fielden, E. B.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Finburgh, S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R (Prtsmth. S.)
Forrest, W.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Foster, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H
Nelson, Sir Frank
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Neville, Sir Reginald J.
Smlthers, Waldron


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Pennefather, Sir John
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Knox. Sir Alfred
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lamb, J. Q.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Perring, Sir William George
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Templeton, W. P.


Long, Major Eric
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Looker, Herbert William
Pile her, G.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Price, Major C. W. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Lumley, L. R.
Radford, E. A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Raine, Sir Walter
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Waddington, R.


Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Remer, J. R.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Macintyre, lan
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


McLean, Major A.
Rice, Sir Frederick
Warrender, Sir Victor


Macmillan, Captain H.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


MacRobert, Alexander M.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Watts, Dr. T.


Maltiand, Sir Arthur D Steel-
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, S. R.


Malone, Major P. B.
Rye, F. G.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall. Northern)


Margesson. Captain D.
Salmon, Major I.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Merriman, F. B.
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Wolmer, Viscount


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Strtatham)
Sanderson, Sir Frank
Womersley, W. J.


Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sandon, Lord
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Moore, Sir Newton J.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Shepperson, E. W.



Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Skelton, A. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES. —


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Mr. Penny and Captain Viscount


Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, C.)
Curzon.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. w. (File, West)
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Sexton, James


Barnes, A.
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnlsy)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Broad, F. A.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Snell, Harry


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Snowden. Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Strauss, E. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sullivan, Joseph


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kelly, W. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. a.
Klrkwood, D.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, George
Tinker, john Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawrence, Susan
Townenu, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Lindley, F. W.
Viant, S. P


Duncan, C.
Lunn, William
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dunnico, H.
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Edge, Sir William
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Evans, Capt. Ernest. (Welsh Univer.)
Murnln, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, J. P.
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W.


Gillett, George M.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenall, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Potts, John S.
Windsor, Walter


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth Pontypool)
Riley, Ben
Wright, W.


Groves, T.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R., Elland)



Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Rose, Frank H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. Whlteley and Mr. Charles


Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Edwards.

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 239; Noes, 118.

Division No. 404.]
AYES.
 [11.41p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gates, Percy
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Atkinson, C.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nelson, Sir Frank


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Neville, Sir Reginald J.


Balniel, Lord
Goff, Sir Park
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grace, John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pennefather, Sir John


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Betterton, Henry B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perring, Sir William George


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Blundell, F N.
Hammersley, S. S.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hanbury, C.
Pilcher, G.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Harland, A.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Radford, E. A.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, Sir Walter


Briggs, J. Harold
Hartington, Marquess of
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Remer, J. R.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Haslam, Henry C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxl'd, Henley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Burman, J. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hills, Major John Waller
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemeuth)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hilton, Cecil
Rye, F. G.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Salmon, Major I.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Campbell, E. T,
Holt, Captain H. P.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandon, Lord


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Christie, J. A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Shepperson, E. W.


Clayton, G. C.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Slaney. Major P. Kenyon


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Smith, R.W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Knox, Sir Alfred
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, J. O.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Cope, Major William
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Stott, Lieut.-Colonel W. H.


Couper, J. B.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Long, Major Eric
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Looker, Herbert William
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lucas-Tooth. Sir Hugh Vere
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Davidson, J.(Hertl'd, Hemel Hempsfd)
Lumley, L. R.
Templeton, W. p.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macintyre, Ian
Tinne, J. A.


Dixey, A. C.
McLean, Major A.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Drewe, C.
Macmillan, Captain H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Eden, Captain Anthony
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Waddington. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Wallace, Captain D. E


Ellis, R. G.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Malone, Major P. B.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Captain D.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Watts, Dr. T.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Merriman, F. B.
Wells, S. R.


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fielden, E. B.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Finburgh, S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wood, E. (Chestr, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)
Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr.


Wolmer, Viscount
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
Penny.


Womersley, W. J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Harris, Percy A.
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Sexton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hayes, John Henry
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Sitch, Charles H.


Broad, F. A.
Hirst, G. H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Snell, Harry


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Stamford, T. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes. S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Strauss, E. A.


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Sullivan, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sutton, J. E.


Compton, Joseph
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, T.
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kirkwood, D.
Townend, A. E.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lansbury, George
Variey, Frank B.


Dennison, R.
Lawrence, Susan
Viant, S. P.


Duckworth John
Lawson, John James
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Duncan, C.
Lindley, F. W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Dunnico, H.
Lunn, William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Edge, Sir William
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


England, Colonel A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Murnin, H.
Westwood, J.


Fenby, T. D.
Naylor, T. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Forrest, W.
Oliver, George Harold
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gardner, J. P.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gillett, George M.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wright, W.


Greenall, T.
Potts, John S.
Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben



Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Grundy, T. W.
Rose, Frank H.
Whiteley


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Saklatvala, Shapurji

Mr. OLIVER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert the words 
and the words from the words 'and the remuneration received' to the end of the paragraph shall cease to have effect.
This Amendment seeks to lay down the principle that if a person has paid his contributions to the insurance fund he shall be entitled to benefit as a right, subject, of course, to the statutory safeguards embodied in the Bill. There are many hundreds of persons who have paid money into the insurance fund for several years, and then, when they find themselves unemployed so far as their insurable occupations are concerned, they are disentitled to benefit. What is the offence that these people have committed? The offence is that they have worked too hard, that they have had another occupation of a small character in addition to their insurable occupation. They have worked at a picture house during the evening or on
Saturday afternoons, or they have taken part in local concert parties, or been secretaries of local clubs. Because they have earned the princely sum of £1 per week, they are denied the right of benefit when they are out of work in their insurable occupations. That is a terrible position to be permitted to exist. If a man has paid his contributions, then, subject to those safeguards which are placed in the Bill, he is entitled to benefit. Of course, there are exceptions to that rule. If a man is a criminal confined to prison or has lost his employment through misconduct, he is not entitled to benefit, but it is a new principle that a man, because he has given up his spare time to earning a pound, is for ever denied the right of benefit which every other ordinary person is entitled to draw when unemployed. He is penalised to a very high degree.
If we take the case of a man with a wife and three children, we find that
under this Bill he would receive 30s. a week, but the man with a similar family whose case I have placed before the Committee, instead of drawing that sum for not working, would, because of his extra diligence, find that the fact that he earned £l a week disqualified him. Consequently, he would be 10s. a week worse off than a man who was not working. I hope the Minister will see the justice of this claim. Can he justify the State taking weekly contributions from people and returning no benefit whatsover? There are certain reliefs that might be given in this type of case. The State might give him benefit, or, on the other hand, they might say that, as they did not propose he should have benefit, they were prepared to exempt him from paying contributions. Whichever way the Minister desires to tackle the matter, will be quite satisfactory.

Mr. BETTERTON: This Clause in the Bill seeks to relieve what has been universally regarded, I think, as a defect in the present law, which is embodied in Section 7 (2) (a) of the Act of 1920. That paragraph states:
A person shall not be deemed to be unemployed on any day on which he is following any occupation from which he derives any remuneration or profit, unless that occupation has ordinarily been followed by him in addition to his usual employment and outside the ordinary working hours of that employment, and the remuneration or profit received therefrom in respect of that day does not exceed three shillings and fourpence.
The effect of that provision is that if a man who is unemployed desires to do something to supplement his unemployment benefit, up to the amount of 3s. 4d. a day, unless he takes some job which, in the words of this Act,
has ordinarily been followed by him
in addition to his ordinary employment and outside his ordinary working hours, the mere fact that he has taken on this employment deprives him of the benefit which he has been receiving. I have had cases in my own Division which seem to show that this is a real defect and a real hardship. The effect of this Clause in this Bill is to alter the conditions which I have just explained. It enables a man to get benefit if the work he does is in an occupation that he could ordinarily have followed. The words:
could ordinarily have been followed
take the place of the words
has ordinarily been followed.
The Committee will see that if the supplementary job which he takes is one which could, ordinarily have been combined with his occupation when he is still in employment, it will not disentitle him to benefit—subject to the limitation of 3s. 4d. a day contained in the Act of 1920. This change is made with the one object of removing what we believe to be a grievance. From my own personal experience in my own constituency, I think the present state of the law does constitute a grievance, and as this Clause proposes to remedy it I hope the Committee will have no hesitation in adopting the words of the Clause.

Mr. T. SHAW: I do not rise to intervene in the discussion, but only to ask the Minister how long he intends to go on, in order that members of the Committee may have some idea of what arrangements to make.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: That I cannot tell the right hon. Member, but I certainly intend to go on until we get a good deal more than this.

Mr. STEPHEN: Do I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say he is accepting the Amendment.

Mr. BETTERTON: No.

12 m.

Mr. STEPHEN: Perhaps it was not my fault that I did not understand the position taken up by the Parliamentary Secretary. While explaining what the Bill does he said nothing as to the attitude of the Government to the Amendment. The point is a little intricate, and in explaining it perhaps he forgot the Amendment had been moved. What is the exact form of the retention of this payment of 3s. 4d. We have been told again and again that this is an insurance scheme, and that all contributions have to have a certain relationship to benefits. If there is a subsidiary occupation which brings in 30s. in one week and only 5s. in another, that represents 35s. in a fortnight. Under the Bill the person would not be able to obtain benefit. But suppose the subsidiary occupation was more regular and he got 20s. each week and so was better off to the extent of 5s. in a fortnight, the Government agree that this should not be taken into
account. It seems to me your whole principle of insurance goes by allowing the thing to get on to those lines. If an engineer with a good record of work attains the 30 contribution qualification and then loses his job and claims benefit, he cannot get the full amount apart from what he gets from any subsidiary occupation that he carries on. If he did not have a subsidiary occupation but had investments bringing in an income of £3 a week there would be no disposition to say he was not entitled to benefit. He might have £10 a week from investments, but if he gets something more than £l a week from a subsidiary occupation it seems there is something suspicious about him. Sometimes artisans are fairly skilled musicians and they may have the idea in some cases that if they get sufficiently well known they may make music their profession, tout until they get sufficiently well known they cannot command a sufficient income from music and cannot drop their ordinary occupation. There ought to be some encouragement for a man in a position like that. It is quite easy for the Ministry to distinguish between a subsidiary and a regular occupation and there is no very great case for making a distinction between income from a subsidiary occupation and from investments. That is the case made by my hon. Friend, to which the Parliamentary Secretary did not deign to say a word in reply. Possibly he felt that in making the concession that has been made he was doing such a tremendous lot that it was preposterous to think of bringing this matter to its logical conclusion. I do not think he intended to be discourteous. He has always been very courteous except when he has moved the Closure on me. I think he must have overlooked it. We shall look forward with interest to the horn. Gentleman taking another turn at the Treasury Box and explaining whether there is any objection to accepting the Amendment.

Mr. BETTERTON: Perhaps I did not reply as fully as I might have done to the actual Amendment. The amount specified in the Act of 1920 is 3s. 4d., and my right hon. Friend and I, after consideration of the matter, have come to the conclusion that on the whole that is a fair sum to allow. Obviously you must have some limit. If you have no
limit a man might be in the fortunate position of earning a considerable sum in addition to his benefit and the two together might be very considerably more than the wages in his ordinary occupation. In that case the inducement to go back to his ordinary employment vanishes altogether, and it is obvious that you must have a sum which, combined with the benefit, is in the great majority of cases lower than the amount of his wages.

Mr. OLIVER: The Parliamentary Secretary says "combined with the benefit." The Parliamentary Secretary must know that there is no benefit at all. He does not keep within benefit, and it is, in addition, 3s. 4d.

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes.

Mr. OLIVER: If he gets 21s. per week, he gets no benefit at all.

Mr. BETTERTON: No.

Mr. OLIVER: But if he had not taken this supplementary work and he were out of work, with a wife and three children, he would be drawing not 21s., but 30s. It may be necessary for administrative purposes—I do not know—that he must have some particular figure fixed for supplementary earnings, but I claim that if you are not prepared to give this man benefit you have no right to take his contribution. You must either give him benefit or say to him: "As we do not propose to give you benefit, we cannot honestly take contributions from you." You cannot have it both ways.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the hon. Gentleman has really misunderstood our case, though not wilfully. The case that I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Oliver) to put was that of an ordinary insured person. He cannot choose whether he shall be an insured person or not. That is settled for him by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and he has, whether he likes it or not, to make his weekly contribution from his earnings to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. If he happens to be in receipt of earned income—not unearned income—above 3s. 4d. per day, he receives no unemployment insurance benefit. If he spends everything that comes to him and he has no earned income at all, when he is unemployed
he gets the full benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Acts. I will put it to the Minister that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs. There may be two men, both of whom are compulsorily insured. One of them who happens, by means of subsidiary employment, to have earned more than 3s. 4d. per day by one penny receives no benefit, and the other man who happens to have no subsidiary employment receives the benefit allowed by Statute. But the injustice goes further than that. If this man is not following some form of subsidiary employment, but is living partially on unearned income, he can still get his benefit. There is no interference with that, nor can there well be any interference with it.
The case that we had put to us is this: "Put more than £1 a week in a man's pocket and you dare not give him unemployment insurance benefit because he will become a waster, and he will not thereafter seek a job." If that be true, the course of the right hon. Gentleman ought to be to take the man out of the insurance scheme and not to compel him thenceforward to pay into a scheme from which he can never draw any benefit. That is not a fair way of treating the insured person. If a person is insured in an insurance company no question is asked, when the payment is being made, as to whether he has any subsidiary source of income, nor is he denied benefit because it might demoralise him if he enjoyed both together. Why is it—and it is a very serious question that goes down to the root of the problem—that the working man is never to be trusted with money? Why is it that you cannot give him £2 a week, but you can give him 30s.? You can pay a man and his wife and three children 30s. per week, but you cannot permit him to have more than that, because if he gets over that point through his own subsidiary earnings he is going to be demoralised. That is an offensive view to take of these insured persons. You may have, as indeed you have, a very large number of people who, when in their own occupation, follow some form of subsidiary employment, and under paragraph (c), persons may after losing their usual employment follow some form of subsidiary work. They may open a little shop, as many people do in the north of England, in the kitchen. They may get some form of work at a theatre
in the evening. They may get some form of day work for a trade union. If it happens to come up to 3s. 4d. per day, and no more, the man can receive his benefit, but if it amounts to more than that he cannot receive his benefit. Is that an incentive to a man to be thrifty? The greatest personal virtue for a working man, according to hon. Members on the Government side, is to be thrifty; yet under this Clause the thrifty man is to be penalised in regard to his unemployment benefit.
The figure of 3s. 4d. having been accepted, we are in this position that it is permitted and recognised as being right that a man can have a subsidiary occupation which will bring him in additional earnings. He may take up the new form of subsidiary employment when he has become unemployed for the first time. If that be so, what is the virtue of sticking to the 3s. 4d.? Why not make a clean sweep and say that if a man has contributed under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, if he fulfills the Statutory conditions laid down in regard to availability for employment, there should be no restrictions placed upon his earning power in uninsurable occupations outside. My hon. Friend is asking for a reasonable thing in asking for the omission of the limit of 3s. 4d. per day as earnings in subsidiary employment. If hon. Members opposite have followed my argument they will see the injustice of the present situation, and one does expect some of them to support us when the matter goes to a Division.

Captain O'CONNOR: I am bound to confess that on first listening to it, the argument of the hon. Member sounds exceedingly attractive, but I do not think it will bear examination very closely, and the reason is that, according to the Amendment, the only test that would remain would be that the subsidiary occupation should be in hours in which ordinary occupation could not be followed, and except within those hours the subsidiary occupation could be pursued to any extent and at any rate of remuneration. What is the possibility that might result if that occurred? It was pointed out rather amusingly by the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) that the unemployment benefit might in those circumstances be used for the purpose of enabling a man to serve an
apprenticeship as a musician. It is not out of the bounds of possibility that if this Amendment were allowed to stand the benefit might be used in that kind of way, there being no limit whatever to what might become earnings in the subsidiary occupation. In those circumstances it would be perfectly easy within a very limited period for the subsidiary occupation to become the main occupation. From the point of view even of hon. Members opposite I can look to a class of people growing up in a subsidiary occupation who would be subsidised by the benefit they were receiving and thereby able to undercut the labour market in the subsidiary occupation itself. From that point of view, attractive as the proposition appears to be, the Amendment in its present form is not practicable at all. The Government's proposal follows out in identical terms the recommendation of the Blanesburgh Committee. When that Committee investigated this problem they do not appear to have had their attention drawn to the curious inference which the hon. Member has pointed out, which, however, is not dealt with by the Amendment.

Mr. R. YOUNG: This is a point which I have raised on former unemployment Bills in Committee. While I agree that the logic of the Amendment means that those who have subsidiary occupations should not be penalised, the point I raised on past occasions was this. As a result of this 3s. 4d. a day, or £1 a week, a large number of men were penalised and lost a certain sum of money which they would not have lost if they had no subsidiary occupation. I know of cases in which men who were getting slightly over 20s. a week, sometimes as branch secretaries, resigned their subsidiary occupations in order that they might be in a position to get their 30s. from the Unemployment Fund. I think they were perfectly justified in doing so. The result, however, was that there was a greater charge on the Unemployment Fund, and it was bad from the trade union point of view. The suggestion I put forward to the Minister is this: why not acknowledge this man's right to unemployment pay, and if he is entitled to benefit at 30s. a week then pay him 10s. a week, benefit which would make his pay 30s. a week inclusive of his earnings of 20s. a week as a branch secretary
or from other employment. It would mean a saving to the Fund, the man would not need to go on the Fund by signing his subsidiary employment, and it would be all to the good of the man concerned. That is a point which the right hon. Gentleman might consider between now and Report stage, because there are a large number of men who take up these duties perhaps because they are a little better educated than the rest of their fellow members, and do the work not for the 20s. they receive, but because of their interest in the work of the trade union. The 20s. a week is given as a small remuneration. This work is done largely in the interests of the State, for the branch secretary is responsible for the disbursement of sick and unemployed benefits, and it is a great hardship that a man who is receiving 20s. for this work should be deprived of 30s. a week unemployment pay. I suggest that the difference between the amount he receives and the amount he would have received from the Unemployment Fund should be made up to the man, so that he is not penalised because of his subsidiary employment. Otherwise the man is forced to give up his pay of 20s. a week in order to get 30s., and if he has a wife and family he has to do this.

Mr. MITCHELL BANKS: The proposal of the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. R. Young), which struck me as being very interesting, comes to this; that it is the same thing as limiting the remuneration from a subsidiary employment to 30s. If the pay from a subsidiary employment is 20s. a week the man would get 10s. in order to make up the difference between 20s. and 30s. If it was over 30s. presumably he would get nothing. If I appreciate the point it is the same as if we substituted 30s. for 20s.

Mr. YOUNG: The hon. and learned Member is partly correct. I do not suggest that the man should be paid more than the total amount of benefit to which he is entitled. He is doing, perhaps, three or four hours work on several days each week, probably at night, and the average wage he gets is 20s. a week. That is all he gets. He is not paid like the secretaries of large friendly societies. If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendment I hope he will consider this point and not force
these men to give up this work at 20s. a week in order to get the 30s. a week unemployment pay.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will gladly consider this point. Difficulties suggest themselves to me, but I will gladly take it into consideration, and perhaps the hon. Member will permit me to put myself in communication with him.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I hope the Minister of Labour will go a little further in regard to this suggestion. I do not think it quite meets the case. This is the anomalous position I see. A man has a subsidiary occupation and earns 19s. a week. When he falls out of his main employment he is entitled to receive 30s. a week. In that event he gets 19s. a week from his subsidiary employment and 30s. a week from his benefit fund. He gets 49s. a week. If this man, owing to his industry and success in his subsidiary employment, earns 21s. instead of 19s. his income falls from 49s. to 21s. There is a tremendous drop. In all other cases, such as old age pensions and other matters, what the State has decided is this, that where a man's income from all sources rises above the maximum figure it will pay him such an amount as together with the income he gets from other sources, will make up the full amount, assuming he was just below the limit.
Therefore, instead of the figure suggested by my right hon. Friend, I suggest that the State should make up the amount, not to the 30s. but to 49s. That seems to me to be reasonable. It is something quite different from what the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. Banks) suggests, because, if the figure were 30s. instead of 20s., the result would be that the man could obtain 60s. At the present time, because he could earn 30s. from the subsidiary employment, he could still be entitled to the whole 30s. benefit, which is a very different proposition. What I am putting to the Minister is that he ought to be willing to make up a man's receipts to the 20s. he can earn, plus the 30s. benefit. I hope the Minister will take the matter into careful consideration. If he cannot accept the Amendment, he may be able to produce a scheme of his own which is in keeping with what reasonable men will think just in this matter of insurance.

Mr. R. HUDSON: I think practically every member of the Committee will agree that this provision often creates a grievance and very often an injustice in actual working, and, on principle, I feel a great sympathy with the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. But I am not altogether sure, like the hon. Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) that it will really have the desired effect, and I think, if we are to alter it, that the suggestion of the horn. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Greenwood) would be a better one, of excluding the people from insurance. But what I would like to suggest to the Minister is that between now and the Report stage he might consider whether it would mot be possible to solve this question by simply altering the sum of 3s. 4d. and by raising it slightly so as to bring it, at all events, above 20s. but below the level of the 30s. The present system, besides being an injustice and creating a grievance, has the effect in many cases of involving a distinct breach of the law, because a wise man who has some small public-house or some small business, and whose receipts are liable to be more than 20s. a week, puts the business in the name of his wife and gets round the law. Surely it is not a desirable thing that we should have a provision on the Statute Book which is encouraging people to get round it in so obvious a way, and I am quite sure that the majority of men who have these small businesses would much prefer to be open about it and have them in their own names. If the Minister could see his way slightly to raise the figure of 3s. 4d. to something between 4s. 6d. and 5s., I believe that would be the most satisfactory solution.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The last speaker and the hon. Member for Luton (Captain O'Connor) would perhaps be quite on the mark with their reasoning were it not for the fact that certain statutory conditions are laid down with which all applicants for unemployment benefit must comply, and it is hardly reasonable to suggest that any person who during a normal period carries on a subsidiary occupation, may become permanently disengaged. The hon. Member for Luton suggested that a man with a subsidiary income of over £1 per week, plus the unemployment benefit, might never return to work in his normal employment, and to that extent he suggested that we might
have people in subsidiary occupations enjoying the advantages of unemployment benefit. I do not think that with the conditions with which each applicant has to comply that could possibly happen over any length of period. It seems to me that the charge is not well founded, and that those fears ought not to weigh with the Committee in reaching a decision. The hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) also suggested that publicans might hand over their houses to the names of their wives. I do not know whether the hon. Member referred to public-houses in Whitehaven, but, personally, I know very few public-houses where the proprietor follows an insured occupation at the same time as he conducts the sale of beer, and it seems to me that that illustration is a very poor one.

Mr. HUDSON: Perhaps the next time the hon. Member honours my constituency with his presence, he will let me know, and I will take and show him some.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The point at issue seems to me to be this. The hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) has already explained that the position at the moment presents an anomaly, and that anomaly ought to be removed if we can find a suitable phrase to meet the suggestion put forward by the mover of the Amendment. Everyone must bear in mind that the persons referred to are compulsorily brought inside the insurance scheme. They are obliged to pay their premiums whether they want to or not, and they are entitled to benefits when a period comes along during which benefits are required. If the policy usually defended by Mem-

bers on the other side be right, that thrift ought to be the brightest virtue of the working people, here is a curious Clause. People attempt to augment their incomes because wages have always been insufficient to maintain families decently, and for having done so they are penalised when temporarily disengaged from their normal employment because they have attempted to augment their income by some subsidiary occupation. The fact that you demand the insurance premium against unemployment ought to justify men in demanding benefits from the insurance fund as and when they are due. At least, one is justified in demanding that the same feeling ought to exist towards men who work for their living as exists towards men who do not work at all and maintain a much better existence than those who do work and are compulsorily insured. The anomalies that exist under the Widows' and Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, and so forth, are well known to every member, and we ought not with our eyes opera deliberately to create another anomaly that no one can justify. At all events, I think that this limit of 3s. 4d. ought to be removed, and that the men ought not to be penalised financially for having a subsidiary occupation. If the words submitted cannot be accepted, at least the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Leicester ought to be adopted, so that no person shall be penalised for having done his best to augment his income.

Mr. BETTERTON: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 83.

Division No. 405.]
AYES.
[12.40 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Blundell, F. N.
Cope, Major William


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Couper, J. B.


Albery, Irving James
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Burman, J. B.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)


Atkinson, C.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.


Balniel, Lord
Campbell, E. T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)
Dawson, Sir Philip


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Dixey, A. C.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Christie, J. A.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Clayton, G. C.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.


Betterton, Henry B.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fermoy, Lord


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Fielden, E. B.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Cooper, A. Duff
Finburgh, S.


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vers
Salmon, Major I.


Fraser, Captain lan
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lumley, L. R.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Galbraith, J. F. W.
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Macintyre, lan
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
McLean, Major A.
Shaw, R. G (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby


Goff, Sir Park
Macmillan, Captain H.
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mel.(Renfrew, W)


Gower, Sir Robert
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Shepperson, E. W.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Skelton, A. N.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Margesson, Captain D.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Grotrian, H. Brent
Merriman, F. B.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Gunston, Captain D. w.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Smithers, Waldron


Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hanbury, C.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Templeton, W. P.


Harland, A.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Harrison, G. J. C.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hartington, Marquess of
Nelson, Sir Frank
Tinne, J. A.


Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Ox('d, Henley)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Pennefather, Sir John
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hills, Major John Waller
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Hilton, Cecil
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watts, Dr. T.


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Pilcher, G.
Wells, S. R.


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Price, Major C. W. M.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Radford, E. A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Raine, Sir Walter
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Remer, J. R.
Wolmer, Viscount


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C


Knox, Sir Alfred
Richardson, Sir P. w. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Lamb, J. Q.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)



Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Long, Major Eric
Russell. Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Mr. Penny and Capt. Bowyer.


Looker, Herbert William
Bye, F. G.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Barnes, A.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Hirst, G. H.
Sitch, Charles H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Bromfield, William
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stephen, Campbell


Cape, Thomas
Jonn, William (Rhondda, West)
Sullivan, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Tinker, John Joseph


Clowes, S.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Compton, Joseph
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Cove, W. G.
Kirkwood, D
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, George
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lawrence, Susan
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawson, John James
Welsh, J. C.


Dunnico, H.
Lindley, F. W.
Westwood, J.


Edge, Sir William
Lunn, William
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Fenby, T. D.
Mackinder, W.
Whiteley, W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Murnin, H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Oliver, George Harold
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Palin, John Henry
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Potts, John S.



Hardie, George D.
Riley, Ben
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Charles


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Edwards.

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 83; Noes, 171.

Division No. 406.]
AYES.
[12.49 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro)
Bondfield, Margaret
Cape, Thomas


Batey, Joseph
Bromfield, William
Charleton, H. C.


Clowes, S
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Compton, Joseph
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cove, W. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sitch, Charles H.


Dalton, Hugh
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Stephen, Campbell


Dunnico, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Sullivan, J.


Edge, Sir William
Lansbury, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawrence, Susan
Townend, A. E.


Fenby, T. D.
Lawson, John James
Varley, Frank B.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lindley, F. W.
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coin*)
Mackinder, W.
Wellock, Wilfred


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Grundy, T. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Oliver, George Harold
Wheatley, Rt. Hon J.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Palin, John Henry
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hardie, George D.
Paling, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Harris, Percy A.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Windsor, Walter


Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.
Wright, W.


Hayes, John Henry
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)



Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hirst G H
Scurr, Jonn
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Whiteley


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Goff, Sir Park
Nelson, Sir Frank


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Albery, Irving James
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pennefather, Sir John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins. Colonel E. K.


Atkinson, C.
Hall, Capt. w. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Balniel, Lord
Hanbury, C.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Pilcher, G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harland, A.
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Radford, E. A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Raine, Sir Walter


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Remer, J. R.


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. J.
Hennessy. Major Sir G. R. J.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hills, Major John Waller
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hilton, Cecil
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Burman, J. B.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Rye, F. G.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Holt, Capt. H. P.
Salmon, Major I.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hudson, R. S.(Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Christie, J. A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Clayton, G. C.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R. Sowerbyl


>Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)


Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Shepperson, E. W.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, J. O.
Skelton, A. N.


Cope, Major William
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Couper, J. B.
Long, Major Eric
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Looker, Herbert William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Smithers, Waldron


Crookshank. Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
MacAndrew. Major Charles Glen
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Macintyre, Ian
Them, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dixey, A. C.
McLean, Major A.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Macmillan, Captain H.
Tinne, J. A.


Fairfax. Captain J. G.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Fermoy, Lord
Margesson, Captain D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Fieiden, E. B.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Finburgh, S.
Merriman, F. B.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Watson, Rt. Hon. w. (Carlisle)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Watts, Dr. T.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore-Brabazon Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Wells, S. R.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hnn. George Abraham
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)




Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Wayland, Sir William A.
Mr. penny and Captain Bowyer.


Wolmer, Viscount
Yerburqh, Major Robert D. T.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. May I very respectfully ask for your guidance, Captain FitzRoy, as to the best course for some of us to pursue in the difficulty in which we find ourselves? I do not suppose it attracted your notice at the time, but the Closure of the last Amendment the discussion of which lasted under 45 minutes and during which there were five Conservative speakers, prevented a considerable number of us from bringing forward cases that we had been particularly anxious to bring forward. I would like to ask your guidance as to what is the best Parliamentary method for some of us on these benches to endeavour to appeal to the justice of the Committee that a Minister should not move the Closure at such a very early stage of the Debate.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member's point of Order is entirely contrary to the Rules of the House.

Mr. BECKETT: I did not intend to reflect any disrespect on the Chairman.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not only the Chair. The House has decided certain things, and it is not the business of the hon. Member to question them.

Mr. BECKETT: I would suggest that when we protest in another way, we are told it is improper; and when we do our best to—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order, order! No point of Order arises there.

Mr. BECKETT: The point I wanted to ask was, whether I would be in order in moving to report Progress on the ground that the Minister was not giving us the guidance that he should do.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member did I should not accept the Motion.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move: in page 4, line 23, leave out paragraph (i).
You will notice that the Bill states:
The following provisions shall have effect in relation to the said statutory conditions.
In calculating the said thirty contributions no account shall be taken of any contributions paid in respect of any person in
respect of any period during which he was not bona fide employed.
1.0 a.m.
My reason for moving this Amendment is that I want to discover from the Minister what is in the mind of the Government in the insertion of this new condition. There has been nothing, so far as I am aware, in the 1920 Act or any other Act similar to this, and I think it is only right that the Committee should understand what is the import of each paragraph in the Bill. We have laid down a statutory condition of 30 contributions. In the Blanesburgh Report one of the things the Committee stated most definitely was the desire that the conditions for benefit should be as definite as possible, so that the person concerned should know exactly where he or she stood so far as the benefit was concerned. What I and some of my friends are afraid of is that this is one of those simple little Clauses which may cause a great deal of uncertainty with regard, to the contributions that the contributors have to pay under this Measure. When a person is unemployed and goes to the Insurance Officer at the Exchange, puts in his card and points to the fact that he has 30 or more contributions, this Clause seems to open up the possibility of wide inquisition into the card of each contributor. It may be that the Minister has nothing like this in his mind at all. There may be something else. What is the meaning of this sort of suspicious element that has entered,
any period during which he was not in bona fide employment"?
If a person is not really employed and stamps his card for a period in which he is not a bonâ fide employed person, the Ministry have a remedy against that individual at the present time. The Ministry have an opportunity of proceeding in any case in which they are satisfied that the stamps do not represent real employment. I would like the Minister to tell us if this has been put in to remedy a weakness, because the Insurance Officers have felt that there has been leakage in this respect and that people have been returning cards with stamps that do not represent real employment. I hope the Minister when he replies will be able to give us some indication of the
number of cases that have occurred during the working of the Acts last year. I am afraid that while there may be a few cases in which a person has got through the Act—just as a person gets through any Act of Parliament and as a person will get through this Bill when it becomes an Act if he has thoroughly made up his mind to get through it—it may cause a great deal of inconvenience to other people. There has been already mentioned the case of the casual workers. Evidently, they have had their stamps questioned in the past as to whether they represent a week of work, a day of work, or three days of work. There have been others besides the casual workers in a similar position. Is this an endeavour to introduce a more difficult statutory condition for the receipt of benefit? I myself think that the Minister of Labour would do better to depend on the common law with regard to this matter than to ask for statutory provisions to guard against any such cases of fraud.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am very glad to give the hon. Member the explanation for which he asks. The object of this Clause is really to prevent faked qualifications for benefit, and I do not suppose any Member of this Committee would wish faked qualifications to be possible. The rule is intended to ensure that the work in respect of which the stamps are in the book is genuine work in the employment field. The reason the new Clause introduced in this Bill is not in the previous Act is really quite clear, when the change that has taken place is considered. Under the previous Acts, there was an automatic check which there is not under the new system. Under the previous Acts, there was the one-in-six rule; that is to say, only one week of benefit was given for every six weeks of contributions. Consequently, supposing charitable employment of half-a-day a week was given and stamps put on for the purpose of qualifying for benefit, the number of stamps so obtained would enable the claimant to procure only a limited amount of benefit. This would be a check. No one likes extended benefit in itself any more than one likes the one-in-six rule. It had at least that small advantage that when a person got out of standard benefit on to extended benefit, unless he could satisfy the extended
benefit provisions, he could be ruled out, stamps or no stamps.
That will not now be the case. If the thirty contributions are there during the last two years they stand; they show the person as being in the insurance field. There is no remedy at Common Law. If a stamp were put on the card without any employment being given, no doubt proceedings could be taken, but, apart from cases of that kind, proceedings could not be taken if there were some employment given, even if that employment were of a charitable kind. May I give one or two cases which have occurred in the past and against which, I think, we ought to guard in the future, in order to illustrate the practice, for which alone this paragraph is introduced. We have had a case where there was an agreement between a local authority and a local board of guardians under which eight men were given employment of one half-day a week for nine weeks on purpose to give them a qualification. It was not a question of relief work or anything of the kind, it was really an attempt to give what is a fake qualification. It is not a test of work, it is just the case of a man trying to get the qualification. Similarly, an individual in another case gives a quite unsuitable man—a man who is not supposed to be a workman whom the employer would otherwise have taken on— five days of work in five weeks for the same reason. He had been disallowed benefit, and the question came up whether he could have had employment. Out of the eight stamps he could show, five had been thus given by an employer, quite admittedly to help the man, in order to give him a qualification—not because he had been genuinely working but, using a charitable word, out of kindness. These are the kind of cases in which employment is not primarily given for the sake of work. It is employment sought for and given primarily for the object of creating a right to benefit. Under the existing system, these cases could be, and were disallowed. Under the new system, a title to benefit would be created, but, as this title is obviously not really genuine, it was intended by this provision to safeguard against improper use being made of the statutory right which would otherwise be given.

Mr. PALIN: I have listened with interest to the cases against which the
Minister desires to protect himself by this Clause. I feel, having heard the explanation, that it is extremely unsatisfactory. I believe it would place a very great obstacle in the way of arrangements for proper work between boards of guardians and other local authorities. This provision, that it is not bona fide employment, will be used very artfully in the same way as we find other conditions being used, such as "not genuinely seeking work." We know that that is misused in some employment exchanges, as well as various other phrases of that kind. This one we are afraid will be used to such an extent that it will be practically impossible for genuine schemes of work to be set on foot. Some boards of guardians and other local authorities have an understanding by which very useful work has been performed by men who have had to go to the guardians after their unemployment pay has run out. If the Minister wishes us to return to wood chopping and digging holes and filling them up again, this is the best way by which he can bring about that undesirable state of things. I am going to support the deletion of the paragraph. The Minister has sufficient power to protect the fund against the kind of cases which he has mentioned this evening.

Mr. WHEATLEY: The proposal in the Bill is one that deserves clearer explanation and stronger justification than has been given by the Minister. He has admitted that it is a new departure in Measures of this kind that he is having inserted in this Bill, and one expects, when a new departure is being made in a Measure which, I suppose, is the twelfth of its family, that there must be some very strong reason for the departure. I submit that we have not had that strong reason from the Minister of Labour. He was asked for the names of the criminals, and he produced two. One of them was a local authority. Some of my friends here seem to know its name, but I am not so privileged. There was a person whom the Minister charitably described as a charitable person doing a charitable act of co-operating in raiding the Insurance Fund, of which he is such a worthy defendant. I wonder what bona fide employment means. We should have an explanation of it. I know the arguments
and the explanations, and the interpretations which we have had, and the quibbling over various words in this Bill. We have heard a good deal about
genuinely seeking employment," and now we have "bona fide employment.
Take the two cases quoted. A man goes out to do road work. Is not working on the roads bona fide employment? I should think it was very much so. I am sure that if any member of this Committee had to take a pick and shovel at six o'clock and go out and engage in road-making he would be convinced before 9.30 that he had been engaged in bona fide employment. But the Minister of Labour says that that is not so. If that is to be singled out as not bona fide employment what is "bona fide employment"; and where are we to get a proper description of "bona fide employment" if not from the father of the law? If road-making is not to be considered "bona fide employment," how are the poor lawyers and judges, to say nothing of the uneducated working class, to interpret this paragraph in a manner that will not prevent people from being deprived of their rights? There is one vein running through this Bill, and it makes it as difficult as possible to get within the benefits of the Bill. You will find that vein running all through. Your 30 stamps or other new conditions have all one object in view, which is to exclude legitimately the largest number of people possible from the benefits of unemployment insurance. Of course, that is all necessary if the numbers are to be reduced. If we are to get to that 8 per cent., 7 per cent., and 6 per cent., you are not going to get it by a bona fide reduction in unemployment; you are going to get it by the system that is being adopted here of making it as difficult as possible to get within the benefits of the Act. This is one of them. You are dealing here with a class of people who are desperately anxious to be restored to the benefits of Unemployment Insurance because it is their only means of getting an income, and the Minister comes along and says, "No, we want to bar every door. Here is a case where even a local authority was wicked enough to assist a man to come into the benefits of unemployment insurance, we must prevent that happening." Then, again, he says, "here is a charitably disposed person, presumably a religious person, anxious to assist a man and even he has to succumb
to the wicked temptation of bringing this poor person within the benefits of the Act. We must bar that door too." You see this running through the Bill; it is almost in every Clause of the Bill, and I hope that this Amendment will be vigorously pressed from this side because the Committee does not know what it is letting itself in for. This provision of "bona fide employment" may be used in a variety of ways not contemplated by the drowsy members of this Committee at twenty minutes past one o'clock on this blessed Wednesday morning. I hope the fatigue that is being imposed on us by the Minister in his efforts to get this Bill through the House without adequate discussion by the use of the Closure and by every means of a Parliamentary majority—I hope the efforts of the Minister and the Government to first of all weaken the Members of the House physically and then chloroform them with the—

The CHAIRMAN: This hardly arises from the question of bona fide employment. Everyone here is bona fide employed.

Mr. WHEATLEY: They do not know what bona fide employment is, and the Minister wants to have it passed by a Committee that does not understand it. It is his business to explain it, and I protest that we have not a legal representative of the Government on the Front Bench. This is quite clearly a case—if there has been a case in the whole course of the discussion—where we ought to have that legal assistance to which the Committee is entitled, and I think we would be quite justified in adjourning. I am not going to press for the adjournment, but I hope that in the course of the Debate that will ensue on this Amendment, the Minister will see that a legal representative of the Government will take his place on the Treasury Bench and explain to the Committee the Amendment and the words "bona fide "as used in this Bill. As I said, Mr. Hope, when you felt it to be your duty to point out that I was departing from the Amendment, unless we have that explanation we may in our present physical and semi-chloroformed condition allow words to get into an Act of Parliament which may have most disastrous results on hundreds
and, perhaps, thousands of the people in this country when this confused and confusing Act of Parliament, which we are passing at this wearisome hour of the morning, gets into the hands of the lawyers outside. I want the lawyers to deal with it here rather than that they should deal with it outside during the next 12 months.

Mr. CAPE: I am very much disappointed with the answer which the Minister gave to this Amendment. He gave us very little data on which to say what would be held not to be "bona fide employment." I assume from his statement that the question of whether a stamp has been obtained by bona fide employment or not will be left to the local committees or probably with the insurance officer or the Employment Exchange, and we may find a variety of decisions being given throughout the length and breadth of the country. In one district, a man may be judged as having obtained his stamp by "bona fide employment," and another man under similar conditions may be declared to have not obtained the stamps through not having "bona fide employment." I want to suggest to the Minister, like the right hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley), who has just previously spoken, that every endeavour should be made to prevent a genuine bona fide working man from being deprived of his unemployment benefit because, as the Minister says, of the risk of one or two who may fake cards getting it. I venture to say that the Minister exhausted the whole of his stock of illustrations. Out of the million men who have to be put through an inquisition and prove the bona fides of their stamps, in only two cases had something been done that ought not to have been done. I have in mind a case in which I appeared before the Court of Referees—not so long ago— concerning a man who had been out of the Army about four months. I think I am right in saying that he has obtained two weeks employment out of the four months of his civilian life. He was anticipating that eventually he would come on the permanent staff. At the Court of Referees he was told, in my presence, that if he would go to another town, some 14 or 15 miles away, there were plenty of people who would be prepared to give him work. Would that be calculated to
be bona fide employment? Supposing the man refuses, then he is told by the Court or by the insurance officer that he has refused to take employment when it is offered him. Let me give another case. I had occasion some time ago to put down a question in regard to a lifeboat being called out for a practice. The members of the crew responded to the call. They got, I think, 3s. 4d. or 3s. 6d. Under this scheme now propounded by the Minister, if these men go out in response to a call like that, will that be supposed to be genuine employment? All these things are going to be most difficult to decide, and I want to suggest to the Minister that there are a lot of things in this Bill of his that are making unemployment benefits very complicated. This particular paragraph in Clause 5 is, I think, the most complicated issue of all. We are leaving these men, largely the men who are in casual employment— and we must remember that all men receiving unemployment benefit are more or lees in casual employment—between two fires. I may say to a man "Come down, I want you to do a day's work at my house," and he says, "No." Supposing the Exchange gets to know that the man has refused, he will have to state a reason as to why he refused employment, and will probably be disallowed benefit not only for that day but probably for some weeks because he refused to accept employment when offered. But, supposing the man does accept my offer, being his first employer for that week, I must put a stamp on his card. Then the man, when he presents his card stamped, finds that the Minister, or some one else, has to decide whether it is a genuine stamp or not. I suggest to the Minister that he might find better words than are in the Bill already, or it would be wiser to accept the Amendment to delete the paragraph altogether.

Mr. E. BROWN: I do not think that there will be any difference of opinion about the necessity for care against claims, but there will be a good deal of difference in the Committee as to these words. I must confess that I am rather worried about them. I remember an essay by a late Member of this House, Mr. Birrell, who, in discussing travellers, said that there were two kinds—travellers and bona-fide travellers. The bona-fide traveller is legislated for in the Temper-
ance Acts, and the definition is that a person must travel so many miles. There it is the distance that matters; here it is the pace at which we travel that matters. The question is whether in putting these words, which in other connections have a definite statutory meaning, in the Bill, the Minister is not choosing a phrase which may cause a great deal more trouble than the original trouble which he seeks to remove. I am somewhat in doubt about it, and, as I turn to Clause 14 which defines the terms, and I find no definition of it, I would like to have a little more information.

Miss LAWRENCE: I want to ask the Minister one question. I think I understand the definition of "bona fide employment." The Minister said that if the work were given in order to benefit a man, if there were an admixture of kindness or charity in the matter, then it became a fraud on the insurance fund and something which ought to be put a stop to.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I correct the hon. Member who has misunderstood me. I said that not being bona fide employed, or employment that was sought or offered primarily with the object of creating a right to benefit.

Miss LAWRENCE: I am sorry. I thought the Minister said employment intended to do good to the man.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No.

Miss LAWRENCE: Then, supposing I employ a man, and do not stamp his card and I am prosecuted and say that this was not really work for the sake of giving work, will that defence hold good, or will it be a crime for me not having stamped the card? At the present time, if you give a man work you have to stamp the card. If the work is given from motives of charity or kindness, if you make a little job about the house for a poor fellow, that is not bona fide within the meaning of the Minister. If I do it merely as a kindness to the man and not because you want the work done, am I excused from stamping the card? If so, there will be many persons who will not stamp the card, and who will say they were really giving the man no work at all; it was only to keep him happy and occupied. We all know the story of the man who asked the foreman to take him
on because the little bit of work he did would not make any difference. I want to know if that sort of reason would be an excuse for not stamping a card?

Mr. WESTWOOD: The interjection on the part of the Minister when the hon. Member was speaking, instead of clarifying the situation, certainly, so far as I am concerned, leads me into greater difficulty. It is stated that employment sought for or offered primarily for the purpose of creating a legal claim will not be considered as bona fide employment. That is going to place us in a more difficult position than ever. On a previous occasion, in intervening in the Debate, the Minister of Labour pointed out that people had only under the present Act to get eight stamps before they had justified a claim which, of course, might be rejected, but under the provisions of this Bill there will have to be a mighty lot more faking before they can possibly qualify. Before, they had to get only six or eight stamps, but now they will have to get thirty before there is any possibility of a legal claim. Surely, if it be a crime for one giving employment not to stamp a card, you are going to have great difficulty in proving whether a man in offering work for one day is only trying to create a claim for benefit or is genuinely offering a man employment. I think the Minister ought to accept this Amendment. He has not met us in many respects during this discussion, and, while no one is anxious to support claims which cannot be justified, unless we have some definition in this Bill as to what "bona fide employment "is, it is far too dangerous to leave it in the hands of officials to say whether a man is bona fide employed or is only getting employment from some charitably-minded person for the purpose of benefit. I trust the Minister will meet us, because no one, merely for the purpose of creating benefit, will for 30 weeks give work for one day or half a day a week. It is far too long a period, and faking cannot go on for 30 weeks. For these reasons, I trust that the Minister will withdraw this part of Clause 5 that we are now discussing, so that we can get on with the remainder of the Clause.

Miss WILKINSON: It seems to me that the people who are going to administer this Bill will be under a battery
of difficulties. We have already heard it explained in the Blanesburgh Report that, in order to decide whether a man is genuinely seeking work, the Insurance Officer has to inquire into the man's state of mind. It seems to me that the Minister is laying it down now that he will not only have to inquire into the state of the mind of the man who is seeking work, but also into the state of mind of those who are giving a man a casual job to help him out of a difficulty. He is going to have to decide whether a man or a woman who may give someone a job cleaning windows, or who may take on a woman to do some sewing casually, is really taking that person on because he or she wants that work done or because he or she is sorry for the person taken on. Apparently, if you take a man on because you have a definite job to be done you will be all right, but if you take a man on for some casual job as an act of kindness you may find yourself brought before a court of law.
Let me point out that if there are cases once brought before a police court where there is a question of doubt, where a man or a woman—say a housekeeper—wants a suburban garden tidied up and pays a man for half-a-day's work—if such a person is brought into court and some doubt thrown on the genuineness of that employment, it will mean that no casual employer will dare take the risk of giving employment of that kind. Take the case of a woman who is given a casual day's work about the house, such as a charwoman or a seamstress.

Captain MACMILLAN: It is only if it is an insurable occupation that this Clause affects it.

HON. MEMBERS: We are talking about insurable occupations.

Miss WILKINSON: Sewing is an insurable occupation. If a woman is a seamstress, she has to have her card stamped. If she is a charwoman, she has to have her card stamped. I know that I have to stamp my charwoman's card. No—that is National Health Insurance. I think the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Captain Macmillan) is right there. But if someone is employed in the sewing trade you have to stamp her cards. Painting is another example,
and so is wood-chopping and casual work of that kind. An employer may quite unknowingly commit a misdemeanour under this Bill. If you have a person employed who really is desirous of faking a claim and of trying to get stamps, can the employer be proceeded against for taking part in a conspiracy to defraud under this Bill? Is it only the man who can be proceeded against? It seems to me that you have a very doubtful legal point here. If these two persons enter into a conspiracy, which of them is to be proceeded against?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Neither.

Miss WILKINSON: It seems to me a very difficult position altogether, and I think that we ought to have some legal representative on the Treasury bench to tell us the actual meaning of this Clause. You are also going to have a very difficult position created with regard to local authorities, and here is where I would like again to have the Minister's word. Boards of Guardians, for instance, have made an arrangement by which they pay the money that otherwise would be given in relief to the Borough Surveyor who supplies work where he can—he often has to manufacture it—such as making and repairing roads, in order that these men may qualify under the unemployment Insurance Act. What are local authorities to do now? They are having these men continually turned off the fund and thrown on to the Boards of Guardians, and surely the guardians are only taking a legitimate precaution if they try to get these men back on to the Unemployment Fund. There will be a glorious riot of differences among the Minister and the local authorities as to whether any particular work—such as cleaning streets or making a road—is really given because it is necessary that it should be done or only for the purpose of getting men back on to the Unemployment Fund. Who will have to decide? I would like to have the opinion of the Minister with regard to that point.
I would also like to ask him a question as to what would be the position of institutions, like the Salvation Army or the Church Army. If the Salvation Army or the Church Army or other charitable institution employ men, and therefore put
stamps on their cards, will the work they have given be decided as charitable work and consequently not bona fide from the point of view of claiming insurance benefit? It seems to me that you will have a very large number of organisations who will find themselves in a very difficult position under this Bill. Men ought not to be deprived of benefit because when they are going round looking for work somebody does a definitely charitable act in giving them something to do. The position is that you have this 30 stamps qualification, the "not genuinely seeking work" disqualification, and now, in addition, you have this position, that the Insurance Officer has to decide not only whether a man has his 30 stamps and whether he is genuinely seeking work, but also whether that work is really genuine. You have to do it one way or another. Either you have a purely insurance scheme with a mathematical qualification, or else you are back again in all the intricacies with some form of rota committee to decide whether this, that, or the other is genuine. You cannot possibly get a scheme which combines the two. The Minister has met all our objections by saying, over and over again, that this is an insurance scheme and that you are getting back to solvency. Here we have the Minister not sticking to his mathematical qualification, but, where discretion can be used against a man instead of in his favour, he brings back all that part of the Bill and leaves out all that which will help a man. If we are to have a Clause of this kind, it ought to be much more carefully drawn than it is at the present time. It is very loose in wording. It could lead to litigation, but, unfortunately, the men who will be deprived of their benefit have no money for litigation. You are always fairly safe in cheating the unemployed, the down and out, and the under dog, because he has no money with which to fight you. People on the other side would not dare to do it if it were an insurance company. If they pay premiums they expect returns, and, if anything goes wrong, they employ a lawyer to get their rights. But when it is a working-man you can take his contributions, and then, by all sorts of subterfuges and dodges, refuse the benefit for which he has paid. If you are going to make the fund solvent, why not at least give the man the benefit
of it. If he produces his 30 stamps, that is his affair; but if you are going into all this business to decide whether all this going round the town to get jobs here and there is genuine, it will be farcical to the last degree.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: rose in his place, and claimed to move," That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 78.

Division No. 407.]
AYES.
[1.53 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pennefather, Sir John


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Frederick George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Balniel, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Had.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hanbury, C.
Pilcher, G.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barnett Major Sir Richard
Harland, A.
Radford, E. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Raine, Sir Walter


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hartington, Marquess of
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bowyer, Captain G. E W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Rye, F. G.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Waller
Salmon, Major I.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hilton, Cecil
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Briq.-Gtn.H.C. (Berks. NewVyi
Hogg, Rt. Hon.Sir D.(St. Marylebone)
Sandeman, N.Stewart


Burman, J. B.
Holt, Captain H. P.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. B. Sowerby)


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Shepperson, E. W.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hudson, R. s. (Cumberland, Whiteirn)
Skelton, A. N.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Christie, J. A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine.'C.)


Clayton, G. C.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smith-Carington, Neville w.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Smithers. Waldron


Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, J. Q.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Couper, J. B.
Long, Major Eric
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Looker, Herbert William
Templeton, W. P.


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Verc
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Crookshank. Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)


Davidson,J.(Hertfd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Tinne, J. A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Macintyre, I.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davies, Ma). Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major A.
Vaughan-Morgan Col. K. P.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dixey, A. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Watts, Dr. T.


Fermoy, Lord
Merriman. F. B.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Wells. S. R.


Finburgh, s.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T,
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Fremantie, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Morden. Col. W. Grant
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Cllve
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nelson, Sir Frank



Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goff, Sir Park
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Major Cope and Capt. Margesson.


Gower, Sir Robert




NOES


Adamson. Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Dalton, Hugh
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Hayday, Arthur


Barnes, A.
Day, Colonel Harry
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)


Batey, Joseph
Dunnico, H.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Edge, Sir William
Hirst, G. H.


Bondfield, Margaret
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)


Bromfield. William
Gibbins, Joseph
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Cape, Thomas
Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Coine)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Charleton. H. C.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)


Clowes, S.
Grundy. T. W.
Kelly, W. T.


Compton, Joseph
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Kennedy, T.


Cove, W. G.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Kirkwood, D.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hardie, George D.
Lansbury, George


Lawrence, Susan
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Wellock, Wilfred


Lawson, John James
Scurr, John
Welsh, J. C.


Lindley F W
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Westwood, J.


Lunn William
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Mackinder W.
Sltch, Charles H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Murnin H.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Oliver, George Harold
Stephen, Campbell
Windsor, Walter


Palin, John Henry
Sullivan, J.
Wright, W


Paling, W.
Tinker, John Joseph
Young. Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Townend, A. E.



Potts, John S.
Varley, Frank B.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Riley, Ben
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)

Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 155; Noes, 79.

Division No. 408.]
AYES.
[2.1 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Albery, Irving James
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pennefather, Sir John


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent. Dover)
Gunston, Captain D. w.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Balniel, Lord
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Pilcher, G.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hanbury, C.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Radford, E. A.


8arnett, Major Sir Richard
Mar land, A.
Raine, Sir Walter


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Betterton, Henry B.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Ch'ts'y)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Capt. R.R.(0xf-d, Henley)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rye, F. G.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Salmon, Major I.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Hills, Major John Waller
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanders. Sir Robert A.


Burman, J. B.
Holt. Captain H. P.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Shepperson, E. W.


Campbell, E. T.
Hudson. Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Skelton, A. N.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whiteh'n)
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Christie, J. A.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Clayton, G. C.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Smithers, Waldron


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cooper, A. Duff
Lamb, J. Q.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Couper, J. B.
Long, Major Eric
Templeton, W. P.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Looker, Herbert William
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainshro)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Lumley, L. R.
Tinne, J. A.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Davidson, Major-General Sir John H.
Macintyre, Ian
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovll)
McLean, Major A.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Macmillan, Captain H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Dixey, A. C.
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Watts, Dr. T.


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wells, S. R.


Fermoy, Lord
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Fielden. E. B.
Merriman, F. B.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Finburgh, S.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Fraser, Captain lan
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Wolmer, Viscount


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Morrison-Bell. Sir Arthur Clive
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph



Gilmour. Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Goff, Sir Park
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Major Cope and Mr. Penny.


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)



NOES


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bondfield, Margaret
Clowes, S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Bromfield, William
Compton, Joseph


Barnes, A.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Cove, W. G.


Batey, Joseph
Cape, Thomas
Crawfurd, H. E.


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Charleton, H. C.
Dalton, Hugh


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vafe)
Kelly, W. T.
Sitch, Charles H.


Day, Colonel Harry
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dunnico, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Edge, Sir William
Lansbury, George
Stephen, Campbell


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lawrence, Susan
Sullivan, J.


Gibbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Tinker, John Joseph


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lindley, F. W.
Townend, A. E.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Lunn, William
Varley, Frank B.


Grenfell, D. R. (Giamorgan)
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Grundy, T. W.
Murnin, H.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Naylor, T. E.
Welsh, J. C.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, George Harold
Westwood, J.


Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Paling, W.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hayday, Arthur
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wright, W.


Hirst. W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Scurr, John



Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Whiteley.


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Sir A. Steel-Maitland.]

Mr. T. SHAW: I scarcely think that we ought to report Progress. I quite appreciate the Minister's kindness in trying to help us on this side, hut we prefer not to take advantage of his kindness. I think we ought really to get on with the work, because I understand the Government have to stand at the Bar before long

and defend their conduct. It is better to get these things out of the way in order to give them an opportunity to defend themselves against the accusations made against them. I therefore hope that we shall not report Progress, but get on with the work.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 78.

Division No. 409.]
AYES.
[2.11 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred


Albery, Irving James
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Lamb, J. Q.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fermoy, Lord
Long, Major Eric


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fleiden, E. B.
Looker, Herbert William


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Finburgh, S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Balniel, Lord
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Fraser, Captain lan
Lumley, L. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Macintyre, lan


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ganzoni, Sir John
McLean, Major A.


Betterton, Henry B.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
MacMillan, Captain H.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacRobert, Alexander M.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Golf, Sir Park
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Blundell, F. N.
Gower, Sir Robert
Margesson, Capt. D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. Glyn K.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Merriman. F. B.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. H. (Ayr)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Moore Sir Newton J.


Burman, J. B.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hanbury, C.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant


Campbell, E. T.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Harland, A.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)
Nelson, Sir Frank


Christie, J. A.
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Clayton, G. C.
Hartington. Marquess of
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)


Cochrane. Commander Hon. A. D.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pennefather. Sir John


Cockerill, Brig -General Sir George
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Penny. Frederick George


Cooper, A. Duff
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Couper, J. B.
Hills, Major John Waller
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hilton, Cecil
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Craig, Sir Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Holt. Capt. H. P.
Pilcher, G.


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Price, Major C. W. M.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Radford, E. A.


Davidson, J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Raine, Sir Walter


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Inskip. Sir Thomas Walker H.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Rhys. Hon. C. A. u.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Dixey, A. C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Smithers, Waldron
Watts, Dr. T.


Rye, F. G.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Salmon, Major I.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wells, S. R.


Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray, Fraser
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Sandeman, N. Stewart
Templeton, W. P.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Shepperson, E. W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Skeiton, A. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wallace, Captain D. E.



Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Ward, Lt.-Col.A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Major Cope and Mr. F. C. Thomson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (File, West)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Riley, Ben


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayday, Arthur
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Scurr, John


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Bromfield, William
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Cape, Thomas
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Smith, Sennie (Penistone)


Charleton, H. C.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stephen, Campbell


Clowes, S.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Sullivan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Tinker, John Joseph


Cove, W. G.
Kelly, W. T.
Townend, A. E.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Kennedy, T.
Varley, Frank B.


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood. D.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lansbury, George
Wellock, Wilfred


Day, Colonel Harry
Lawrence, Susan
Westwood, J.


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Edge, Sir William
Lindley F. w.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lunn, William
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Gibbins, Joseph
Mackinder, W.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murnin, H.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Naylor, T. E.
Windsor, Walter


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Wright, W.


Grundy, T. W.
Palin, John Henry
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Paling, W.



Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES —


Hardie, George D.
Potts, John S.
Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. B Smith.

Committee reported Progress; to sit again to-morrow.

The remaining Government Orders were read and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 8th November.

Adjourned at Twenty minutes after Two o' Clock.

EMPLOYMENT OF YOUNG PERSONS (PARTICULAR OCCUPATIONS) BILL,

"to make better provision for regulating the employment of young persons in particular occupations; and for other purposes connected therewith," presented by Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK; supported by Mr. Ammon, Mr. Briant, Mr. Percy Harris, Sir Robert Newman, Sir Wilfrid Sugden, and Mr. Snell; to be read a Second time upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 208.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to perpetuities and accumulations as respects certain benefit funds and as respects trust funds for the reduction of the
National Debt." [Superannuation and other Trust Funds (Validation) Bill [Lords.]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act for further promoting the revision of the Statute Law by repealing enactments which have ceased to be in force or have become unnecessary." [Statute Law Revision Bill [Lords.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON: reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A (added In respect of the Marriages (Prohibited
Degrees of Kelationship) Bill): Mr. Walter Baker; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Ammon.

Report to lie upon the Table.